Barack Obama can't be too pleased with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and arrest of Governor Rod Blagojevich and an aide on corruption charges.
A quick read of the U.S. Attorney's press release discloses allegations of corruption that are almost mind-blowing in their depth and scope. According to investigators, Blagojevich was conducting a veritable auction of the president-elect's former U.S. Senate seat, which he resigned last month and which Illinois law empowers the sitting governor to fill pending the next election. (Remind me why Obama decided to resign so quickly?) The governor was evidently basing his decision on whom to appoint according to which candidate could deliver up the most attractive combination of goodies for himself and his wife. Blagojevich made it clear that he wanted money for himself and his campaign coffers and a job that would keep him politically viable. He was also worried about the ongoing criminal investigation and for some reason thought appointing himself to the Senate seat might prove useful in expanding his future legal defense options.
The feds' takedown of Blagojevich hits a little too close to home for Obama. First, it's a reminder of the swamp of corruption from which Obama's hope-and-changey movement paradoxically arose. Second, and more immediately, it appears that Blagojevich sought to include the incoming administration in the wheeling and dealing over the vacant Senate seat. The press release outlines a three-way scheme whereby the governor would appoint a candidate favored by the president-elect, a union would create a high-paying position for Blagojevich, and the new administration would pay back the union at some later date. While it's not alleged that Obama knew about, let alone would have gone along with, such a deal, the fact that it was even being discussed suggests that Obama may not be regarded as Mr. Clean within Illinois political circles.
Obama connections aside, it's just not a very pretty picture. For example, Blagojevich was allegedly trying to get the editorial staff of the Tribune fired as a condition for securing state assistance in helping the cash-strapped newspaper's parent company in selling the Cubs. Evidently, "pay for play" was pretty much SOP in Blagojevich's administration.
This is a serious mess for Illinois and the kind of trouble back home Obama doesn't need. It will be interesting to see how well Obama can distance himself from it and whether, indeed, Blagojevich will let him.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Who's really in charge? Hillary Clinton vs. Susan Rice
Hillary Clinton's appointment to the office of Secretary of State has received a lot of attention for two reasons. First, Obama' selection of Hillary supposedly evoked the "team of rivals" strategy that Lincoln took in assembling his cabinet (although Lincoln's machinations in this regard have been completely over-hyped, a subject we need not revisit here). Second, the appointment of the relatively hawkish Hillary has been cited as further evidence of Obama's screwing over of the lefties who helped get him elected.
Another aspect of the appointment that deserves comment is the prospective role of Dr. Susan Rice in implementing the new administration's foreign policy. The president-elect has designated Rice to serve as U.N. Ambassador and has elevated that position to cabinet-level rank.
I'm frankly surprised that Hillary went along with the move to elevate the U.N. Ambassador to cabinet-level rank. What that move essentially means is that, while Hillary will be the nation's chief diplomat, and thus the putative architect of U.S. foreign policy, she will not be in charge of our diplomatic mission to the U.N. Where's the logic in that beyond Obama's apparent desire to toss a face-saving bone to Dr. Rice?
From a management standpoint, the idea of having the U.N. Ambassador report directly to the POTUS rather than the Secretary of State seems badly misguided. The only mitigating factors I see are the fact that there is precedent for the move from as recently as the Clinton Administration and the fact that Secretary of State is considered the highest-ranking post in the cabinet (although this is only formally true for purposes of presidential succession and protocol). Perhaps Hillary figured her status as Secretary of State would speak for itself, notwithstanding Obama's efforts to placate Dr. Rice and her supporters.
It may be of little practical consequence, but something about this decision just doesn't sit well with me. It strikes me as the personnel equivalent of voting "present." If Obama wanted Hillary in charge of foreign policy, he should have given her the whole thing, and not carved out a piece of it for the person many people thought he should have picked instead of Hillary. Let's hope he's not being too clever for his own good.
Another aspect of the appointment that deserves comment is the prospective role of Dr. Susan Rice in implementing the new administration's foreign policy. The president-elect has designated Rice to serve as U.N. Ambassador and has elevated that position to cabinet-level rank.
I'm frankly surprised that Hillary went along with the move to elevate the U.N. Ambassador to cabinet-level rank. What that move essentially means is that, while Hillary will be the nation's chief diplomat, and thus the putative architect of U.S. foreign policy, she will not be in charge of our diplomatic mission to the U.N. Where's the logic in that beyond Obama's apparent desire to toss a face-saving bone to Dr. Rice?
From a management standpoint, the idea of having the U.N. Ambassador report directly to the POTUS rather than the Secretary of State seems badly misguided. The only mitigating factors I see are the fact that there is precedent for the move from as recently as the Clinton Administration and the fact that Secretary of State is considered the highest-ranking post in the cabinet (although this is only formally true for purposes of presidential succession and protocol). Perhaps Hillary figured her status as Secretary of State would speak for itself, notwithstanding Obama's efforts to placate Dr. Rice and her supporters.
It may be of little practical consequence, but something about this decision just doesn't sit well with me. It strikes me as the personnel equivalent of voting "present." If Obama wanted Hillary in charge of foreign policy, he should have given her the whole thing, and not carved out a piece of it for the person many people thought he should have picked instead of Hillary. Let's hope he's not being too clever for his own good.
Monday, December 8, 2008
You've got to be kidding me
This sounds like parody, but isn't. It's a serious proposal to revive FDR's Federal Writers Project as a means of tossing an economic lifeline to print journalists who are unemployed or facing layoffs. You read that correctly. It's a bailout for journalists.
What makes this proposal especially galling is the acknowledgement by the writer, Mark Pinsky, that the problems facing the print media have more to do with technological innovation -- the rise of the internet -- than with general economic conditions. Indeed, he flatly states that "ink-on-paper periodicals are never coming back." If that's so (and I don't dispute it), then why shouldn't these former newspapermen and -women be looking for a new line of work as every other displaced worker is required to do?
For Mr. Pinsky, the answer to that question relates to the invaluable contribution an army of federally-subsidized writers could make in documenting the socioeconomic trends that have somehow escaped the notice of free-enterprise journalism. Apparently nostalgic for the left-wing output of the depression-era Federal Writers Project, he writes:
Reading between the lines, Mr. Pinsky seems to believe laid-off reporters should be able to earn a federal paycheck by writing stories that are too far left even for NPR. Terrific.
Unfortunately, the $700 billion TARP bailout and the proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers make it difficult to reject proposals like this out of hand. While I'm confident a bailout of journalists would never gain political traction, the current atmosphere in Washington practically invites troubled industries or groups to plead for federal funds, regardless of the implications for the taxpayer or for the economy as a whole.
What makes this proposal especially galling is the acknowledgement by the writer, Mark Pinsky, that the problems facing the print media have more to do with technological innovation -- the rise of the internet -- than with general economic conditions. Indeed, he flatly states that "ink-on-paper periodicals are never coming back." If that's so (and I don't dispute it), then why shouldn't these former newspapermen and -women be looking for a new line of work as every other displaced worker is required to do?
For Mr. Pinsky, the answer to that question relates to the invaluable contribution an army of federally-subsidized writers could make in documenting the socioeconomic trends that have somehow escaped the notice of free-enterprise journalism. Apparently nostalgic for the left-wing output of the depression-era Federal Writers Project, he writes:
This time, the FWP could begin by documenting the ground-level impact of
the Great Recession; chronicling the transition to a green economy; or capturing
the experiences of the thousands of immigrants who are changing the American
complexion. Like the original FWP, the new version would focus in particular on
those segments of society largely ignored by commercial and even public media.
Reading between the lines, Mr. Pinsky seems to believe laid-off reporters should be able to earn a federal paycheck by writing stories that are too far left even for NPR. Terrific.
Unfortunately, the $700 billion TARP bailout and the proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers make it difficult to reject proposals like this out of hand. While I'm confident a bailout of journalists would never gain political traction, the current atmosphere in Washington practically invites troubled industries or groups to plead for federal funds, regardless of the implications for the taxpayer or for the economy as a whole.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The era of hyper-partisanship
American politics has been gripped by hyper-partisanship for about the last 14 years. I would trace the beginning of this trend to 1994, when Newt Gingrich led a GOP takeover of the House of Representatives and promptly sought to wrest control of the ship of state from the actual chief executive, Bill Clinton. Had Gingrich merely fallen short in trying to set himself up as a rival to Clinton, things might have been different. Unfortunately, the conflict escalated in a way that neither man likely intended at the time. Clinton saw Gingrich and the conservatives as a useful foil he could use to maintain his popularity with both liberals and moderates without having to engage in the kind of heavy lifting one normally associates with presidential greatness. Clinton didn't need to fight a war overseas to secure his legacy; he was fighting -- and winning -- a war at home. It was Clinton versus the conservatives.
Oddly, the conflict had very little to do with ideology. Indeed, that was the beauty of it. While Clinton was portraying himself as defending America against the dark forces of conservatism, nobody seemed to notice that he was governing the country somewhat conservatively himself. Following the defeat of HillaryCare, he abandoned any effort toward wholesale liberal reform. In fact, his signature legislative accomplishment proved to be welfare reform. Even his small-ball initiatives often had a conservative bent, such as the program to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
In the end, Clinton did at least four things that helped create a perfect storm for hyper-partisanship over the ensuing decade: First, he engaged in a trumped up war against conservatives in order to elevate his standing with liberals and moderates. Second, other than waging war against the right, he starved liberals of any meaningful accomplishments on their behalf. Third, he handed conservatives a bludgeon by engaging in a reckless relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Finally, he survived the Republicans' bludgeon attack.
The net result of all this was to render the left deeply embittered against both Clinton and conservatives. After Al Gore's electoral defeat -- itself a source a hard feelings on all sides -- they demanded and secured a liberal takeover of the Democratic Party.
On the conservative side, the Clinton years left the right feeling frustrated over their inability to undermine Clinton's popularity and the fact that policy debates -- which the GOP should have dominated -- had been overshadowed by personality.
While the Clinton years spawned the ugly rancor between the left and the right, the rise of the internet has only fueled the trend. The problem isn't that the internet allows those of all political stripes to express their own opinions. The problem is that it allows everyone to have their own facts. People increasingly rely on the internet for their information, but most of the political news they receive comes from (or through the filter of) highly partisan sources. These outlets --bloggers, mostly -- steadfastly refuse to "cover" stories that don't advance their own political agenda. Take the "torture" issue, for example. To a reader of liberal blogs, it is a given that the Bush supports the use of torture in the War on Terror and that this policy renders the Administration the legal and moral equivalent of an international criminal enterprise. To find a conservative rebuttal of that point of view is not impossible, but it takes a certain amount of effort. The reason? Right-wing bloggers simply haven't given the issue nearly the same amount of attention. The proverbial "other side of the story," once a required element of a standard piece of objective journalism, barely gets through at all. If you take a look at Memeorandum on a regular basis you see this pattern repeat itself day in and day out. Stories that one side finds utterly fascinating are virtually ignored by the other side. One can only conclude that those who frequent liberal sites are getting a decidedly different version of the "news" from those on the right.
"Cocooning" has made it possible to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Bush lied about Iraq, there are plenty of sites that will confirm that belief. If you want to believe Obama is a practicing Muslim, you can find that too. What's increasingly hard to find is any news source that is trusted by both sides to cover issues like these in a fair and balanced fashion.
The absence of such outlets don't exist makes it difficult to feel optimistic about the prospects for improving the tone of the political debate.
Oddly, the conflict had very little to do with ideology. Indeed, that was the beauty of it. While Clinton was portraying himself as defending America against the dark forces of conservatism, nobody seemed to notice that he was governing the country somewhat conservatively himself. Following the defeat of HillaryCare, he abandoned any effort toward wholesale liberal reform. In fact, his signature legislative accomplishment proved to be welfare reform. Even his small-ball initiatives often had a conservative bent, such as the program to put 100,000 new cops on the street.
In the end, Clinton did at least four things that helped create a perfect storm for hyper-partisanship over the ensuing decade: First, he engaged in a trumped up war against conservatives in order to elevate his standing with liberals and moderates. Second, other than waging war against the right, he starved liberals of any meaningful accomplishments on their behalf. Third, he handed conservatives a bludgeon by engaging in a reckless relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Finally, he survived the Republicans' bludgeon attack.
The net result of all this was to render the left deeply embittered against both Clinton and conservatives. After Al Gore's electoral defeat -- itself a source a hard feelings on all sides -- they demanded and secured a liberal takeover of the Democratic Party.
On the conservative side, the Clinton years left the right feeling frustrated over their inability to undermine Clinton's popularity and the fact that policy debates -- which the GOP should have dominated -- had been overshadowed by personality.
While the Clinton years spawned the ugly rancor between the left and the right, the rise of the internet has only fueled the trend. The problem isn't that the internet allows those of all political stripes to express their own opinions. The problem is that it allows everyone to have their own facts. People increasingly rely on the internet for their information, but most of the political news they receive comes from (or through the filter of) highly partisan sources. These outlets --bloggers, mostly -- steadfastly refuse to "cover" stories that don't advance their own political agenda. Take the "torture" issue, for example. To a reader of liberal blogs, it is a given that the Bush supports the use of torture in the War on Terror and that this policy renders the Administration the legal and moral equivalent of an international criminal enterprise. To find a conservative rebuttal of that point of view is not impossible, but it takes a certain amount of effort. The reason? Right-wing bloggers simply haven't given the issue nearly the same amount of attention. The proverbial "other side of the story," once a required element of a standard piece of objective journalism, barely gets through at all. If you take a look at Memeorandum on a regular basis you see this pattern repeat itself day in and day out. Stories that one side finds utterly fascinating are virtually ignored by the other side. One can only conclude that those who frequent liberal sites are getting a decidedly different version of the "news" from those on the right.
"Cocooning" has made it possible to believe whatever you want. If you want to believe that Bush lied about Iraq, there are plenty of sites that will confirm that belief. If you want to believe Obama is a practicing Muslim, you can find that too. What's increasingly hard to find is any news source that is trusted by both sides to cover issues like these in a fair and balanced fashion.
The absence of such outlets don't exist makes it difficult to feel optimistic about the prospects for improving the tone of the political debate.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bush should resign???
The New York Times' Gail Collins wrote a column this past weekend arguing that President Bush should resign immediately in order to allow Barack Obama to deal with the financial crisis immediately rather than wait until January 20. Specifically, her proposal calls for both Bush and Vice President Cheney to resign, which would make House Speaker Nancy Pelosi president until January 20. Collins assumes that Pelosi would serve basically as a puppet for Barack Obama between now and Inauguration Day.
I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.
Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.
Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.
Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.
One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.
Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.
In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.
I considered blogging about this idea several weeks ago when a similar proposal was advanced before the election by a pair of op-ed writers in the Boston Globe. If memory serves, I didn't think it deserved the attention at that time. It's still a bad idea, but the attention Collins' piece has drawn to it makes it worth discussing.
Collins' column evinces not the slightest appreciation for the radical nature of her proposal. It is radical in three ways. First, it would set a precedent for making presidential terms of office contingent on outside events. Presidents would be urged to resign whenever it appeared (or was argued) they could no longer be effective during their remaining days in office. This would introduce an element of unpredictability to our system of government that we have wisely avoided up to this point.
Second, Collins' proposal would introduce a new feature into our constitutional scheme: the "caretaker president." According to Collins, Nancy Pelosi would assume the White House for the sole purpose of governing in accordance with the wishes of Barack Obama. This innovation would be truly obnoxious to the concept of an independent executive as enshrined in Article II of the Constitution.
Third, if adopted, Collins' proposal would invite future leaders to use the Constitution's rules regarding presidential succession -- which were intended only to provide continuity of government in cases of unexpected vacancies -- to install virtually anyone they wanted as president. Let's say the powers that be in Washington wished to make Ryan Seacrest president without bothering to have an election. All it would take is for the current vice president to resign and for the president to appoint Seacrest to fill that vacancy. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, Congress would have to confirm the appointment by a simple majority vote of both houses. Once confirmed, the president would resign, making Ryan Seacrest president. The only thing truly far-fetched in this scenario is using Ryan Seacrest as the hypothetical subject. One could substitute Barack Obama's name for Seacrest's and suddenly it's no more crazy that what Gail Collins is proposing. Arguably, it's a more conservative scheme than that which Collins is advocating, since it completely avoids the "caretaker president" problem. Either way it would be a decision by a relative handful of people in Washington to install a new president without bothering with an election or waiting for the current presidential term to expire.
One would think that a proponent of such a radical proposal would attempt to make a fairly compelling case for its necessity. In the case of Gail Collins, such an expectation would be sorely misplaced. Her main "argument" (if it can be called that) is that Bush should resign in order to avoid being regarded as the worst president in U.S. history (behind James Buchanan), rather than merely one of the worst. In other words, she thinks Bush should resign because resigning would be a good thing for him to do. If it sounds circular, it's because it is.
Collins' other rationale for a Bush resignation -- or perhaps it's the same rationale stated in different words -- is her assertion that the economic crisis requires it. How it requires it is not really clear. Collins seems to believe there are things that Barack Obama could do to help rescue the economy between now and January 20 that can't be done unless Nancy Pelosi is president. Of course, Speaker Pelosi can't become president uner Collins' scenario unless President Bush resigns, which almost certainly won't happen unless he agrees that the policies Obama would seek to implement would in fact be good for the country. In that case, however, he could just begin to implement those policies himself rather than turn over his $400,000-per-year job to Nancy Pelosi for two months. All of this might seem less silly if there were any specifics under discussion as to the "immediate" steps the Obama/Pelosi cabal had in mind for saving the economy. Collins fails to explain what those specific steps are, leading me to wonder if her proposal has any serious purpose other than to provide her with something to write about.
In Collins' defense, there is actually some historical precedent for the idea of a sitting president resigning in order to allow the incoming president to take office prior to Inauguration Day. FDR evidently considered trying to somehow ease Hoover out of office following the 1932 election. Perhaps more significantly, Woodrow Wilson secretly intended to resign in order to allow his opponent, Charles Evans Hughes, to assume the White House if Wilson had lost the 1916 election. I believe Wilson's plan was to appoint Hughes secretary of state, which at that time would have made him third in line for the presidency. Of course, the fact that Wilson considered such a move in 1916 doesn't mean it was a good idea then, let alone that it would be a good idea now. At least in 1916, however, the idea had the backing of the sitting president, and therefore had a chance to be put into practice. In the present instance, all the proposal has going for it is Gail Collins' snarky assertion that Bush needs to resign in order to lock up the number two spot on the list of all-time worst presidents. Presumably, Bush would need to hear a much stronger case for his resignation than Collins has been able to marshal.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Is picking Hillary a hedge strategy?
It looks like Hillary is definitely coming on board as Obama's Secretary of State. I think it's a dumb move on his part, although I'm not personally disappointed because I regard Hillary as somewhat hawkish at least in comparison to other Democrats.
It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.
It occurs to me that Hillary could represent something of a hedge strategy for Obama if, as some speculate, he is truly worried about a challenge from her in 2012. Obama may figure that if disaster strikes during his first term, it will be on account of a foreign policy crisis. If so, then putting Hillary in charge of Foggy Bottom would at least ensure that she couldn't capitalize on such a misfortune.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Gay marriage moving at the speed of light
Mort Kondracke: "In recent years, Republicans have let right-wing talk show hosts whip the GOP base into frenzies -- over immigration, brain-damage victim Terry Schiavo and same-sex marriage -- that have branded the party as troglodyte."
This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?
This is amazing. Ten years ago, same-sex marriage was unthinkable. Now, to oppose it makes you a troglodyte. Does public opinion really move that fast?
The politics of bailouts
The proposed bailout of the (formerly-)Big Three appears to be in trouble. The simple reason for that is that nobody can keep a straight face while saying the words, "This money will make Detroit competitive again." At most, the bailout would stave off a collapse for several months while not addressing the structural problems that are causing Ford, GM, and Chrysler to lose money on every car they sell.
From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.
Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.
Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!
Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.
From a partisan political standpoint, it's hard to see how this issue doesn't end up hurting Democrats. Although those with a direct stake in the health of the auto industry would likely disagree, the public as a whole is clearly skeptical about the wisdom of bailouts in general and of a bailout of Detroit in particular. Importantly, part of the reason for that skepticism is that the Democrats have spent much of the last two years bemoaning all the money we have spent in Iraq and the overall precarious state of the economy. Now that the Dems are on the brink of controlling both political branches of government, they find themselves in the position of backing another huge commitment of funds toward a project that seemingly offers no long-term prospects for success. Moreover, whether or not the bailout occurs, the Dems are still expected to solve the larger financial mess. Thus, it seems to be a no-win situation for Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. They must either support an unpopular measure that's not likely to work, or not do it and be perceived as having no answers.
Of course, this is really just a function of the overall challenge facing the Democrats: Although they're being asked to fix the economy, it's unlikely there's any "fix" that does not entail a painful and protracted recession. Blaming Bush simply won't make that challenge go away. Declaring that there's nothing to be done won't work either, not after an election in which the American were told they needed the Democrats in power in order to clean up the country's economic mess. The country was promised results and the Democrats need to deliver.
Another problem the bailout presents for the Democrats is that it undermines one of their core political principles: the notion that Washington should stop using fiscal policy to pad the coffers of Big Business. Barack Obama used this theme against McCain when he accused his rival of supporting billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations. But if you think it's bad to give corporations a tax break, how can you justify giving corporations a direct subsidy in the form of a bailout? Suddenly the whole world is upside down: the Democrats are the party of Big Business and the Republicans are telling the corporations to stuff it!
Hopefully the economy will rebound sooner rather than later, whether because of or in spite of the Democrats' actions. I'd much rather see the country get back on its feet economically than see the Democrats suffer because it didn't.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Campaign flashback: "Palling around with terrorists"
Associated Press "News Analysis", Oct. 5, headlined "Palin's words carry a racial tinge":
"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)
Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:
"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)
So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.
"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)
Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:
"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)
So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.
Obama's "Team of Rivals"?
Apparently some people are treating Obama's reported interest in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as an act of political genius similar to Lincoln's deft assembly of a "Team of Rivals" to comprise his cabinet. I think this meme gives much too much credit to both Lincoln and Obama.
Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.
As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.
Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.
As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.
Hillary for Secretary of State?
I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but the name Hillary Rodham Clinton is being floated as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.
I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.
First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.
Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.
So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?
From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.
Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.
Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.
Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.
From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.
The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.
I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.
First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.
Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.
So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?
From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.
Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.
Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.
Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.
From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.
The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.
For auto industry to move forward, government needs to take its foot off the brakes
The proposed bailout recipient de jour is the U.S. auto industry. Detroit is going broke and many in Congress think the solution involves pumping 25 billion taxpayer dollars into the coffers of the Big Three. I disagree.
If they really want to see the U.S. automakers get back on their feet, the government should encourage them to file bankruptcy and get out from under the bloated union contracts that make it impossible for the Big Three to turn a profit. Ford actually loses something like $1,400 for every vehicle it sells. Collective bargaining agreements require Ford, GM, and Chrysler to pay workers about $25 per hour more than American autoworkers receive in non-union shops. And that's just part of the story. The Big Three must pay UAW employees these exorbitant wages even when there's no work to do, which is increasingly the case. They're also required to fund pension obligations that are clearly beyond the companies' means.
The proposed bailout appears to be consciously aimed to prevent the automakers from filing bankruptcy and getting out from under the UAW contracts. In essence, therefore, it's a bailout of the unions at the expense of the automakers, rather than a bailout of the automakers themselves.
A serious program to revive the domestic auto industry would go beyond merely reforming union contracts. It would also include doing away with CAFE standards, which restrict Detroit's ability to manufacture the larger, more profitable -- and safer -- vehicles that Americans traditionally covet.
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to understand that businesses need to make money if they are to survive. Left to their own devices, the Big Three would make whatever styles and sizes of cars the public was most eager to buy, thus maximizing their profits. Congress, however, wants U.S. automakers to build smaller cars with higher fuel efficiency, and it uses CAFE standards to achieve that goal. Consequently, Detroit sells far fewer cars, and makes much less money, than it should. As a result, Americans don't get to buy the cars they really want and the entire economy suffers from Detroit's financial travails. It's a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers alike.
A federal bailout would be, at best, a temporary means of averting an industry collapse. It will do nothing to solve the underlying problems, much of which are of Washington's own creation.
If they really want to see the U.S. automakers get back on their feet, the government should encourage them to file bankruptcy and get out from under the bloated union contracts that make it impossible for the Big Three to turn a profit. Ford actually loses something like $1,400 for every vehicle it sells. Collective bargaining agreements require Ford, GM, and Chrysler to pay workers about $25 per hour more than American autoworkers receive in non-union shops. And that's just part of the story. The Big Three must pay UAW employees these exorbitant wages even when there's no work to do, which is increasingly the case. They're also required to fund pension obligations that are clearly beyond the companies' means.
The proposed bailout appears to be consciously aimed to prevent the automakers from filing bankruptcy and getting out from under the UAW contracts. In essence, therefore, it's a bailout of the unions at the expense of the automakers, rather than a bailout of the automakers themselves.
A serious program to revive the domestic auto industry would go beyond merely reforming union contracts. It would also include doing away with CAFE standards, which restrict Detroit's ability to manufacture the larger, more profitable -- and safer -- vehicles that Americans traditionally covet.
Unfortunately, Congress doesn't seem to understand that businesses need to make money if they are to survive. Left to their own devices, the Big Three would make whatever styles and sizes of cars the public was most eager to buy, thus maximizing their profits. Congress, however, wants U.S. automakers to build smaller cars with higher fuel efficiency, and it uses CAFE standards to achieve that goal. Consequently, Detroit sells far fewer cars, and makes much less money, than it should. As a result, Americans don't get to buy the cars they really want and the entire economy suffers from Detroit's financial travails. It's a lose-lose deal for consumers and taxpayers alike.
A federal bailout would be, at best, a temporary means of averting an industry collapse. It will do nothing to solve the underlying problems, much of which are of Washington's own creation.
Friday, November 7, 2008
We're all socialists now
Interesting exchange on Hannity & Colmes last night. And by "interesting", I mean insipid. Evidently, when the Joe the Plumber was Joe the Child, his parents went on welfare a couple of times. And you know what that makes him? A hypocrite for opposing redistribution of wealth! At least that's what a bunch of lefty bloggers are saying.
Although this line of attack is unfair for several reasons, let's just focus on the main one. It's the notion that if the government takes one penny of tax money and gives it to the most destitute person in America, that's wealth redistribution; and anyone who calls himself a free-market capitalist must oppose that use of taxpayer funds or accept the label of "hypocrite." Sorry, but real life is a tad more complicated than that.
I don't know anyone who thinks there shouldn't be any taxpayer-subsidized social safety net for the truly needy. Similarly, I doubt anyone is so much of a free-market capitalist that they oppose any government regulation of business. It's always a question of limiting the role of government to that which is necessary, efficient, and avoids undesired consequences.
I would describe the "conservative" position on welfare as follows: (a) it should exist; (b) it should only be available to the truly needy; (c) it should be administered in a way that avoids fraud and waste; and (d) it should be designed so as to not encourage or permit able-bodied people to use it as an alternative to work. I'm not sure about Joe the Child, but I'm confident Joe the Plumber would agree with all of that.
Now let's talk about what Barack Obama's socialist adherents believe. They want to have the government take a significant chunk of the income of high earners and give it to people in the middle and lower classes in order to make incomes less disparate across the board. Obama himself has sought to justify increasing the capital gains tax rate, a policy he acknowledges tends to reduce overall tax revenues, on grounds of "fairness."
It's one thing to tax people in order to pay for necessary government services and operations. It's quite another to tax people simply to make them less wealthy in relation to others. Unfortunately, in the drive to label yet another political opponent a "hypocrite," the left would have us all ignore that distinction.
Although this line of attack is unfair for several reasons, let's just focus on the main one. It's the notion that if the government takes one penny of tax money and gives it to the most destitute person in America, that's wealth redistribution; and anyone who calls himself a free-market capitalist must oppose that use of taxpayer funds or accept the label of "hypocrite." Sorry, but real life is a tad more complicated than that.
I don't know anyone who thinks there shouldn't be any taxpayer-subsidized social safety net for the truly needy. Similarly, I doubt anyone is so much of a free-market capitalist that they oppose any government regulation of business. It's always a question of limiting the role of government to that which is necessary, efficient, and avoids undesired consequences.
I would describe the "conservative" position on welfare as follows: (a) it should exist; (b) it should only be available to the truly needy; (c) it should be administered in a way that avoids fraud and waste; and (d) it should be designed so as to not encourage or permit able-bodied people to use it as an alternative to work. I'm not sure about Joe the Child, but I'm confident Joe the Plumber would agree with all of that.
Now let's talk about what Barack Obama's socialist adherents believe. They want to have the government take a significant chunk of the income of high earners and give it to people in the middle and lower classes in order to make incomes less disparate across the board. Obama himself has sought to justify increasing the capital gains tax rate, a policy he acknowledges tends to reduce overall tax revenues, on grounds of "fairness."
It's one thing to tax people in order to pay for necessary government services and operations. It's quite another to tax people simply to make them less wealthy in relation to others. Unfortunately, in the drive to label yet another political opponent a "hypocrite," the left would have us all ignore that distinction.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Obama's first mistake?
Expectations for Obama's greatness are so high in some quarters that at times it seemed he was leading a cult rather than a political campaign. Obama did nothing to tamp down his supporters' expectations before the election, a decision I assumed he would revisit after.
Then I started to hear a lot of talk yesterday about how the president-elect is trying to assemble an "all-star" cabinet. Putting aside the question of whether a has-been like John Kerry constitutes a "star," is this really the kind of theme Obama ought to be sounding? I would think he would be better served by announcing he's looking for "hard workers who have the patience and stamina to handle the day-to-day work needed to build success over time." Hire John Kerry if you must, but don't raise expectations any higher than they already are.
Then I started to hear a lot of talk yesterday about how the president-elect is trying to assemble an "all-star" cabinet. Putting aside the question of whether a has-been like John Kerry constitutes a "star," is this really the kind of theme Obama ought to be sounding? I would think he would be better served by announcing he's looking for "hard workers who have the patience and stamina to handle the day-to-day work needed to build success over time." Hire John Kerry if you must, but don't raise expectations any higher than they already are.
Remembrances of elections past
Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, commentators (myself included) sought to liken the current election to some prior quadrennial contest. The assumption seems to be that we've exhausted our supply of unique elections and are now simply recycling the old ones.
Now that the election of 2008 has passed, we should be able to state with some degree of confidence which previous postwar election it most closely resembles.
Unfortunately for McCain, it wasn't 1948. Although the polls were wildly inconsistent in measuring the extent of Obama's lead, the RCP average of the polls mirrored the final outcome fairly closely. (We should know by now a candidate's in trouble the minute they start talking about 1948.)
We can also toss out the various elections in which a contented public returned an incumbent president to office by an impressive margin. This takes care of Eisenhower's win in '56, LBJ's in '64, Nixon's in '72, Reagan's in '84, and Clinton's in '96. To this list we can add W's reelection in 2004 (although it was close and hotly contested) and his father's defeat of Michael Dukakis in '88 (which was tantamount to a reelection of Ronald Reagan for a third term).
Bush v. Gore also fails to make the first cut. The 2000 election is mainly remembered for "hanging chads" and inaugurating the meme of a "50-50" electorate divided into red and blue states. Apart from the tattered remnants of the red-blue divide, it's hard to see anything in the election of 2008 that's reminiscent of 2000.
That leaves six possible candidates for the election most similar to 2008: Ike v. Stevenson in 1952, Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, Nixon v. Humphrey and Wallace in 1968, Carter v. Ford in 1976, Reagan v. Carter in 1980, and Clinton v. Bush and Perot in 1992.
Of these, I'm first going to toss out 1960. Although Democrats like to compare Obama to JFK (and, more tellingly, Michelle Obama to Jackie Kennedy), there's no obvious similarity between the actual elections. Americans were reasonably content throughout the Eisenhower years and in 1960 merely had to decide which young Cold Warrior -- the handsome and athletic Kennedy or the pale and lip-sweating Nixon -- ought to succeed him. Shockingly, handsome and athletic won.
We should probably next eliminate 1952. Although that election to succeed an unpopular incumbent pitted an articulate and intellectual politician from Illinois against an aging war hero admired by Republicans and Democrats alike, it ended with a win for the war hero. Sorry, Mac!
The next election to get the boot has to be 1992. Although Clinton, like Obama, was a young newcomer who capitalized on economic worries to defeat the party which had long held the White House, Perot's decisive spoiler role in '92 strains any further comparisons to 2008.
The election of 1968 offers some plausible parallels to 2008, but they don't really hold up under close inspection. These may qualify as troubled times for the U.S., but we're not experiencing assassinations and street riots as was the case 40 years ago. While discontent over the war in Vietnam dominated the election in 1968, the war in Iraq had become virtually a second-tier issue by Election Day 2008. Nixon's perceived role as the tough-minded leader who would restore a sense of order to nation that was falling apart at the seams finds no parallel in Obama's soft-focus hope-a-palooza campaign. Furthermore, Nixon by 1968 was anything but a newcomer on the American political horizon. Finally, any comparisons to 1968 forces us to disregard the third-party candidacy of George Wallace, which garnered 46 electoral votes.
This leaves the two Carter elections, 1976 and 1980. Like others, I've written before about the parallels between this year and 1980. Where I think the comparison falls short is that Reagan was promising not just change, but a very specific kind of change. He sought a mandate to dismantle the big government policies of the past and project strength abroad. Obama's ambitions are far less clear. While there is every reason to suspect he is a man of the left, it's not at all clear that's the reason America is sending him to the White House. To the contrary, his primary appeal derives from his youth and style, and the perceived significance of his racial background. To a large extent, Obama downplayed his liberal philosophical orientation during the general election in order to project an image of moderation and an openness to opposing viewpoints.
The key in all this is the fact that while Reagan represented a political movement, Obama embodies a cultural phenomenon. There is simply no Obama analogue to the terms "Reagan Republican" or "Reagan Democrat." That is not to say Obama name will never be associated with a particular governing philosophy, only that such a philosophy wasn't the focus of his campaign.
That leaves 1976 as my choice for the election most similar to 2008. Both years' campaigns saw the emergence of appealing Democratic candidates who were newcomers to the national stage. Both campaigns featured well-known Republicans who were liked and admired by Americans across the political spectrum. Both of these Republicans, however, were hobbled -- mostly unfairly --by their connections to the grossly unpopular GOP president who had won the previous two elections. Their Democratic nominees, by contrast, were uniquely poised to offer voters the promise of a new era in Washington, free from the taint of the embattled prior incumbent. The promise of change outweighed concerns over the Democratic challenger's relative lack of experience and vaguely-defined political philosophy. The Republican candidates, moreover, were not well-positioned to present an ideological alternative to the Democrats due to their own poorly-defined political philosophies. In the end, despite giving the Democrat an unexpectedly tough run for his money, neither Ford nor McCain was able to stem the tide of change that fate had beckoned.
The parallels between this year and 1976 naturally invite the speculation that Republicans will reclaim the White House in 2012. I hope that happens, but not if it means reliving the Carter years. Good luck, Mr. President.
Now that the election of 2008 has passed, we should be able to state with some degree of confidence which previous postwar election it most closely resembles.
Unfortunately for McCain, it wasn't 1948. Although the polls were wildly inconsistent in measuring the extent of Obama's lead, the RCP average of the polls mirrored the final outcome fairly closely. (We should know by now a candidate's in trouble the minute they start talking about 1948.)
We can also toss out the various elections in which a contented public returned an incumbent president to office by an impressive margin. This takes care of Eisenhower's win in '56, LBJ's in '64, Nixon's in '72, Reagan's in '84, and Clinton's in '96. To this list we can add W's reelection in 2004 (although it was close and hotly contested) and his father's defeat of Michael Dukakis in '88 (which was tantamount to a reelection of Ronald Reagan for a third term).
Bush v. Gore also fails to make the first cut. The 2000 election is mainly remembered for "hanging chads" and inaugurating the meme of a "50-50" electorate divided into red and blue states. Apart from the tattered remnants of the red-blue divide, it's hard to see anything in the election of 2008 that's reminiscent of 2000.
That leaves six possible candidates for the election most similar to 2008: Ike v. Stevenson in 1952, Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, Nixon v. Humphrey and Wallace in 1968, Carter v. Ford in 1976, Reagan v. Carter in 1980, and Clinton v. Bush and Perot in 1992.
Of these, I'm first going to toss out 1960. Although Democrats like to compare Obama to JFK (and, more tellingly, Michelle Obama to Jackie Kennedy), there's no obvious similarity between the actual elections. Americans were reasonably content throughout the Eisenhower years and in 1960 merely had to decide which young Cold Warrior -- the handsome and athletic Kennedy or the pale and lip-sweating Nixon -- ought to succeed him. Shockingly, handsome and athletic won.
We should probably next eliminate 1952. Although that election to succeed an unpopular incumbent pitted an articulate and intellectual politician from Illinois against an aging war hero admired by Republicans and Democrats alike, it ended with a win for the war hero. Sorry, Mac!
The next election to get the boot has to be 1992. Although Clinton, like Obama, was a young newcomer who capitalized on economic worries to defeat the party which had long held the White House, Perot's decisive spoiler role in '92 strains any further comparisons to 2008.
The election of 1968 offers some plausible parallels to 2008, but they don't really hold up under close inspection. These may qualify as troubled times for the U.S., but we're not experiencing assassinations and street riots as was the case 40 years ago. While discontent over the war in Vietnam dominated the election in 1968, the war in Iraq had become virtually a second-tier issue by Election Day 2008. Nixon's perceived role as the tough-minded leader who would restore a sense of order to nation that was falling apart at the seams finds no parallel in Obama's soft-focus hope-a-palooza campaign. Furthermore, Nixon by 1968 was anything but a newcomer on the American political horizon. Finally, any comparisons to 1968 forces us to disregard the third-party candidacy of George Wallace, which garnered 46 electoral votes.
This leaves the two Carter elections, 1976 and 1980. Like others, I've written before about the parallels between this year and 1980. Where I think the comparison falls short is that Reagan was promising not just change, but a very specific kind of change. He sought a mandate to dismantle the big government policies of the past and project strength abroad. Obama's ambitions are far less clear. While there is every reason to suspect he is a man of the left, it's not at all clear that's the reason America is sending him to the White House. To the contrary, his primary appeal derives from his youth and style, and the perceived significance of his racial background. To a large extent, Obama downplayed his liberal philosophical orientation during the general election in order to project an image of moderation and an openness to opposing viewpoints.
The key in all this is the fact that while Reagan represented a political movement, Obama embodies a cultural phenomenon. There is simply no Obama analogue to the terms "Reagan Republican" or "Reagan Democrat." That is not to say Obama name will never be associated with a particular governing philosophy, only that such a philosophy wasn't the focus of his campaign.
That leaves 1976 as my choice for the election most similar to 2008. Both years' campaigns saw the emergence of appealing Democratic candidates who were newcomers to the national stage. Both campaigns featured well-known Republicans who were liked and admired by Americans across the political spectrum. Both of these Republicans, however, were hobbled -- mostly unfairly --by their connections to the grossly unpopular GOP president who had won the previous two elections. Their Democratic nominees, by contrast, were uniquely poised to offer voters the promise of a new era in Washington, free from the taint of the embattled prior incumbent. The promise of change outweighed concerns over the Democratic challenger's relative lack of experience and vaguely-defined political philosophy. The Republican candidates, moreover, were not well-positioned to present an ideological alternative to the Democrats due to their own poorly-defined political philosophies. In the end, despite giving the Democrat an unexpectedly tough run for his money, neither Ford nor McCain was able to stem the tide of change that fate had beckoned.
The parallels between this year and 1976 naturally invite the speculation that Republicans will reclaim the White House in 2012. I hope that happens, but not if it means reliving the Carter years. Good luck, Mr. President.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Did I mention he's black?
My post earlier didn't list among the silver linings of Obama's election that it signifies a landmark in race relations. The omission wasn't intended to be pointed; I just don't share the astonishment that some people seem to feel about the election of a black president. There are a few reasons for this:
1. I've felt all along - certainly since I've been voting - that America was capable of electing a black president. I realize that many black people doubted this, so for them, this is a big deal. But I've never really thought of the country as being so racist that significant numbers of people wouldn't vote for a black candidate for that reason alone.
2. We've had blacks serve as secretary of state, as senator, and in other high-level leadership positions, and when has their race ever been an issue? Indeed, when is the last time any prominent, serious person objected to a black person holding high office in this country? The Truman Administration? Obviously the election of a black man would have seemed fantastic to everyone 50 years ago. But that was, well, 50 years ago. Now it comes as no shock at all, at least not to me.
3. In Obama's case, it was apparent throughout the campaign that his being black was more of an advantage than a disadvantage in attracting votes. It certainly helped against Hillary. I interpreted the "change" in Obama's slogan "change we can believe in" to refer to his race. Hillary also represented "change" (being a woman), but we couldn't believe in her, I interpreted Obama to be saying, because she's about as ethical as Nixon. In Obama, you were getting both "change" (i.e., a candidate who was not a white male), without the cognitive dissonance of voting for a Clinton out of a sense of civic virtue.
4. I would point out that Obama lost the white vote 55% to 44% according to exit poll data I've seen. Not that I'm proposing to move the goalposts or anything, but perhaps we should save the champagne for the day a black wins the majority of white votes -- or a woman wins a majority of male votes. Or not.
1. I've felt all along - certainly since I've been voting - that America was capable of electing a black president. I realize that many black people doubted this, so for them, this is a big deal. But I've never really thought of the country as being so racist that significant numbers of people wouldn't vote for a black candidate for that reason alone.
2. We've had blacks serve as secretary of state, as senator, and in other high-level leadership positions, and when has their race ever been an issue? Indeed, when is the last time any prominent, serious person objected to a black person holding high office in this country? The Truman Administration? Obviously the election of a black man would have seemed fantastic to everyone 50 years ago. But that was, well, 50 years ago. Now it comes as no shock at all, at least not to me.
3. In Obama's case, it was apparent throughout the campaign that his being black was more of an advantage than a disadvantage in attracting votes. It certainly helped against Hillary. I interpreted the "change" in Obama's slogan "change we can believe in" to refer to his race. Hillary also represented "change" (being a woman), but we couldn't believe in her, I interpreted Obama to be saying, because she's about as ethical as Nixon. In Obama, you were getting both "change" (i.e., a candidate who was not a white male), without the cognitive dissonance of voting for a Clinton out of a sense of civic virtue.
4. I would point out that Obama lost the white vote 55% to 44% according to exit poll data I've seen. Not that I'm proposing to move the goalposts or anything, but perhaps we should save the champagne for the day a black wins the majority of white votes -- or a woman wins a majority of male votes. Or not.
Looking on the bright side
OK, that happened.
Fortunately, there are some silver linings. Like these:
1. It looks like the Dems will be held to 56 seats in the Senate, and one of those is Lieberman. Assuming the GOP has 44 seats plus Joementum, they should be able to mount a filibuster on the big, important stuff, even allowing for a couple of defections.
2. Along the lines of what I wrote yesterday, Obama will be taking office without a socialist or even a strong liberal mandate. Based on the morning-after reaction throughout the country (at least as portrayed in the media), the main significance of his victory is that we have now elected the first "black" president. (Nevermind that we've also elected our 44th president of white ancestry.) If the decisive factor in Obama's election was his race, and not a program for wholesale liberal reform, then it's not at all clear that the country will support a leftist agenda.
My gut tells me the voters tended to ignore the Jeremiah-Wright-slash-Bill-Ayers-type revelations about Obama because they took him at his word that he was not, in fact, a wild-eyed leftist fanatic. Democratic leaders and the media certainly did their utmost to assure the public that Obama was a "safe," mainstream candidate, who was not even "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate" as the National Journal had claimed. If that was the figurative deal he made with the American voters to get elected, he's going to have to honor it to some extent once he takes office.
3. I don't relish the thought of the Dems having control of the White House and both houses of Congress. On the other hand, I do sort of relish the thought that they will have all the responsibility.
4. Obama's election makes it highly unlikely Hillary will ever become president.
5. Gay marriage lost out in California and across the country. I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I'm even more opposed to the notion that a state constitution can be amended by judicial fiat. It's a usurpation of our democratic liberties regardless of the cause in whose name it is being done. If the people want to enshrine a right to gay marriage in their state or federal constitutions, let them go through the established amendment process. It's outrageous for judges to claim the right to create new constitutional rights from the bench.
6. Another silver lining, I have to admit, is the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. If he had been, I think it would have been another four years of continuous acrimony and recriminations from the left (so, yes, in that sense at least, "McSame"). This is especially true when you consider that the only way McCain was going to win was in a real squeaker. Therefore, we would have almost certainly had all manner of litigation, accusations of vote fraud, and possibly riots in the street.
It actually is somewhat hard to imagine McCain having a successful presidency under such circumstances. The left would have treated him as a fiend, and McCain would probably have tried to earn their good will by bending over backward to accommodate them. It would not have been an ideal time for the conservative movement.
7. Speaking of conservatives, we now have an opportunity to take a breather of sorts and regroup. The central issue facing the GOP is whether to try to lead the country toward authentically conservative principles or whether to go along with the larger historical trend in favor of ever-increasing government involvement in the economy. Conservatism has been described as a three-legged stool, consisting of (a) strong national defense/foreign policy, (b) social conservatism (including judicial appointments), and (c) economic conservatism as measured by low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, and free trade. The party is actually fairly consistent in regard to the first two legs, despite a number of prominent GOP leaders who are pro-choice. The problem has been in regard to spending, entitlements, and related issues like immigration. There's an inherent problem for Republicans in trying to champion economic conservatism. The Dems and the media tend to demagogue on these issues and portray the GOP as a bunch of fatcats and meanies. We need to find out if there are a sufficient number of Republican leaders willing to make a stand for economic conservatism. Simply advocating lower taxes is not enough. We need to challenge the entire welfare-state mentality that perceives it to be the government's primary responsibility to provide everyone (including illegal aliens!) with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
8. Finally, I'm glad to see the Republicans reacting to Obama's win in a calm and generally respectful manner. Conservatives have a lot of work to do to bounce back from where we are. We also have legitimate grievances -- against the media, for example -- and legitimate worries about what the next four years hold in store for the nation. Nevertheless, we can't change any of those things today, and no amount of kicking and screaming is going to help.
Fortunately, there are some silver linings. Like these:
1. It looks like the Dems will be held to 56 seats in the Senate, and one of those is Lieberman. Assuming the GOP has 44 seats plus Joementum, they should be able to mount a filibuster on the big, important stuff, even allowing for a couple of defections.
2. Along the lines of what I wrote yesterday, Obama will be taking office without a socialist or even a strong liberal mandate. Based on the morning-after reaction throughout the country (at least as portrayed in the media), the main significance of his victory is that we have now elected the first "black" president. (Nevermind that we've also elected our 44th president of white ancestry.) If the decisive factor in Obama's election was his race, and not a program for wholesale liberal reform, then it's not at all clear that the country will support a leftist agenda.
My gut tells me the voters tended to ignore the Jeremiah-Wright-slash-Bill-Ayers-type revelations about Obama because they took him at his word that he was not, in fact, a wild-eyed leftist fanatic. Democratic leaders and the media certainly did their utmost to assure the public that Obama was a "safe," mainstream candidate, who was not even "the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate" as the National Journal had claimed. If that was the figurative deal he made with the American voters to get elected, he's going to have to honor it to some extent once he takes office.
3. I don't relish the thought of the Dems having control of the White House and both houses of Congress. On the other hand, I do sort of relish the thought that they will have all the responsibility.
4. Obama's election makes it highly unlikely Hillary will ever become president.
5. Gay marriage lost out in California and across the country. I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I'm even more opposed to the notion that a state constitution can be amended by judicial fiat. It's a usurpation of our democratic liberties regardless of the cause in whose name it is being done. If the people want to enshrine a right to gay marriage in their state or federal constitutions, let them go through the established amendment process. It's outrageous for judges to claim the right to create new constitutional rights from the bench.
6. Another silver lining, I have to admit, is the fact that John McCain wasn't elected. If he had been, I think it would have been another four years of continuous acrimony and recriminations from the left (so, yes, in that sense at least, "McSame"). This is especially true when you consider that the only way McCain was going to win was in a real squeaker. Therefore, we would have almost certainly had all manner of litigation, accusations of vote fraud, and possibly riots in the street.
It actually is somewhat hard to imagine McCain having a successful presidency under such circumstances. The left would have treated him as a fiend, and McCain would probably have tried to earn their good will by bending over backward to accommodate them. It would not have been an ideal time for the conservative movement.
7. Speaking of conservatives, we now have an opportunity to take a breather of sorts and regroup. The central issue facing the GOP is whether to try to lead the country toward authentically conservative principles or whether to go along with the larger historical trend in favor of ever-increasing government involvement in the economy. Conservatism has been described as a three-legged stool, consisting of (a) strong national defense/foreign policy, (b) social conservatism (including judicial appointments), and (c) economic conservatism as measured by low taxes, smaller government, less regulation, and free trade. The party is actually fairly consistent in regard to the first two legs, despite a number of prominent GOP leaders who are pro-choice. The problem has been in regard to spending, entitlements, and related issues like immigration. There's an inherent problem for Republicans in trying to champion economic conservatism. The Dems and the media tend to demagogue on these issues and portray the GOP as a bunch of fatcats and meanies. We need to find out if there are a sufficient number of Republican leaders willing to make a stand for economic conservatism. Simply advocating lower taxes is not enough. We need to challenge the entire welfare-state mentality that perceives it to be the government's primary responsibility to provide everyone (including illegal aliens!) with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
8. Finally, I'm glad to see the Republicans reacting to Obama's win in a calm and generally respectful manner. Conservatives have a lot of work to do to bounce back from where we are. We also have legitimate grievances -- against the media, for example -- and legitimate worries about what the next four years hold in store for the nation. Nevertheless, we can't change any of those things today, and no amount of kicking and screaming is going to help.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election Day Angst
Actually, I'm not nearly as anxious about today's election as I was in 2004. Kathryn Jean Lopez has an interesting post on the Corner that helps to explain the difference. Evidently, she wrote in 2004 that the election that year was so important, she would almost be willing to concede the 2008 race to the Democrats in order to win in 2004. I think I felt exactly the same way at the time.
In 2004, I felt the race was essentially a referendum on whether a U.S. president could take aggressive steps, up to and including waging war, in order to combat the Islamic extremism that was threatening to destroy, over time, Western civilization. John Kerry, in my mind, represented capitulation to the Islamofascist threat in its various forms, including the deferring of judgment in the matter to the pinstriped pantywaists that control the U.N.
This year, I don't feel that Americans are voting on the anything as monumental as all that. As a matter of fact, if Obama wins, it's not clear what the American people will have voted "for." I specifically don't think a majority of voters want socialism, even if that's what Obama has up his sleeve. While Obama's election would carry with it a raft of bad consequences for the country, I don't think it would tell us a great deal about the electorate beyond the obvious fact that Americans are very confused about the state of the economy and worried about the future.
Indeed, that's probably the best summary I could give of this election. People are confused, worried, and angry about the sense of crisis that's gripping the country. They don't really know who or what to blame. Obama is superficially a more attractive choice because he advocates "change." McCain is reassuring at some level, but it's never been clear exactly what he stands for. So it really does all boil down to "change" and "hope": roll the dice on "change" and "hope" we still have a country four years from now.
In 2004, I felt the race was essentially a referendum on whether a U.S. president could take aggressive steps, up to and including waging war, in order to combat the Islamic extremism that was threatening to destroy, over time, Western civilization. John Kerry, in my mind, represented capitulation to the Islamofascist threat in its various forms, including the deferring of judgment in the matter to the pinstriped pantywaists that control the U.N.
This year, I don't feel that Americans are voting on the anything as monumental as all that. As a matter of fact, if Obama wins, it's not clear what the American people will have voted "for." I specifically don't think a majority of voters want socialism, even if that's what Obama has up his sleeve. While Obama's election would carry with it a raft of bad consequences for the country, I don't think it would tell us a great deal about the electorate beyond the obvious fact that Americans are very confused about the state of the economy and worried about the future.
Indeed, that's probably the best summary I could give of this election. People are confused, worried, and angry about the sense of crisis that's gripping the country. They don't really know who or what to blame. Obama is superficially a more attractive choice because he advocates "change." McCain is reassuring at some level, but it's never been clear exactly what he stands for. So it really does all boil down to "change" and "hope": roll the dice on "change" and "hope" we still have a country four years from now.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama's assist from the media
Assuming, as expected, Obama wins tomorrow's election, what will that tell us about America in 2008?
Mainly, it tells us that the mainstream media have shifted from being merely biased in its coverage to operating as de facto propaganda ministry for the Democratic Party. What I'll remember above all else from this campaign is the outright refusal of the media to report revelations about Obama that would have been daily, front-page news in any other year. The examples are so many, it would be depressing to recite them all. However, it's no exaggeration to say that the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe received more press attention than the fact that Barack Obama belonged to a Socialist fringe party in the 1990s.
When it was not simply ignoring negative stories about Obama, the media sought to defuse legitimate attacks on Obama -- and indeed turn them against McCain and the Republicans --through a highly propagandistic device known as the "fact check." At best, the "fact check" is a vehicle through which a news organization can examine a disputed, controversial issue and render a judgment as to which side (Obama's) was telling the truth and which side (McCain's) was being less than honest. At worst, the fact-checkers performed this function with respect to charges and allegations against Obama that were indisputably true. In that case, the "fact check" tended to conclude with the reporter's blessing of whatever spin the Obama campaign happened to put on the charge.
Here's an illustration of how a "fact check" tended to work in practice:
Mainly, it tells us that the mainstream media have shifted from being merely biased in its coverage to operating as de facto propaganda ministry for the Democratic Party. What I'll remember above all else from this campaign is the outright refusal of the media to report revelations about Obama that would have been daily, front-page news in any other year. The examples are so many, it would be depressing to recite them all. However, it's no exaggeration to say that the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe received more press attention than the fact that Barack Obama belonged to a Socialist fringe party in the 1990s.
When it was not simply ignoring negative stories about Obama, the media sought to defuse legitimate attacks on Obama -- and indeed turn them against McCain and the Republicans --through a highly propagandistic device known as the "fact check." At best, the "fact check" is a vehicle through which a news organization can examine a disputed, controversial issue and render a judgment as to which side (Obama's) was telling the truth and which side (McCain's) was being less than honest. At worst, the fact-checkers performed this function with respect to charges and allegations against Obama that were indisputably true. In that case, the "fact check" tended to conclude with the reporter's blessing of whatever spin the Obama campaign happened to put on the charge.
Here's an illustration of how a "fact check" tended to work in practice:
- THE CHARGE: While serving in the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama kidnapped and murdered dozens of teenage girls. John McCain says he has videotapes to prove it, along with DNA tests and affidavits from a number of victims who managed to escape.
- THE FACTS: Obama's plan for kidnapping and murder specifically exempts girls ages 13-16. Furthermore, according to his website, the vast majority of American teenagers would not be kidnapped and murdered if Obama is elected.
- THE VERDICT: McCain's effort to play on Americans' fear of kidnapping and murder is misleading at best, and possibly racist. Fact Checker gives him 2 Pinocchios.
What we've seen from the media this year is the kind of change Goebbels could believe in.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Bracing for Obama
Heading into the final weekend of Election 2008, things are not looking so good for John McCain. Although I don't think Obama is headed for a landslide victory -- indeed, he may not win at all -- I find myself devoting more and more of my mental energies speculating on what his victory would mean rather than whether it will come to pass.
Obama has done such a masterly job during the campaign of presenting an image of an inspiring, unflappable moderate, one can really only guess at what kind of president he will try to be. An optimistic (from my perspective) interpretation of his career would be that while he began his career as a race-obsessed extreme leftist, he mainly took that path out of political opportunism. There are actually several arguments supporting that interpretation. For one, when Obama first entered state politics in Illinois, there is no way he could have imagined ever being in a position to run for president. It seems probable he joined Jeremiah Wright's church as a means of establishing credibility in the black community. His other questionable associations may have been similarly aimed at ingratiating himself into left-wing political circles. Despite these troubling associations, it doesn't appear that Obama has ever personally engaged in extreme left-wing rhetoric. Moreover, in his first book, Dreams From My Father, Obama seems to eschew radicalism in its various forms, sometimes in mocking, dismissive tones.
There is also the matter of Obama's legislative career. While he is clearly a staunch liberal, there is no evidence he has ever tried to pull his party to the far left.
All of this suggests the possibility that Obama is, in fact, more or less a mainstream liberal with a genuinely moderate temperament.
As I indicated, that's the "optimistic" interpretation. At the other extreme, one can argue that Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, the socialist New Party membership, "spread the wealth," etc., are all genuine red flags signifying a radical mindset that Obama has taken increasing pains to conceal as he's moved up the ladder of political success. If so, it follows that he will only display his true leftist colors after reaching the top rung on January 20.
I think either interpretation is entirely plausible. Unfortunately, the mere possibility that the latter interpretation is correct is more than enough reason to want to keep Obama out of the White House. Yet, if the polls are correct, the voters either don't recognize the risk or are willing to take a chance.
In acknowledging the possibility that Obama is just a mainstream liberal, I don't mean to imply that the country's fortunes wouldn't suffer as a result of his policies. They would, but the damage is likely to be less severe as compared to a program of radical socialist "reform."
There are mitigating factors, however, even if Obama turns out to be a radical in moderate clothing. First, since the country doesn't believe that's who they are electing, Obama won't have popular support if he seeks to govern as a hard-core leftist. In fact, he would lose a lot of Democratic support in Congress.
Another important factor is whether the GOP succeeds in holding onto at least 40 seats in the Senate. If they do, then Obama will be significantly constrained in his legislative agenda due to the requirement of 60 votes to end a filibuster.
Overall, while an Obama presidency would almost certainly be very bad for the country, it would not necessarily be the catastrophe that I have come to fear. Mainly I take solace in the fact that, however well Obama performs on Election Day, he will not have a mandate for radical change, having presented himself to the voters as a liberal-centrist. Provided Obama realizes this, we'll survive.
Obama has done such a masterly job during the campaign of presenting an image of an inspiring, unflappable moderate, one can really only guess at what kind of president he will try to be. An optimistic (from my perspective) interpretation of his career would be that while he began his career as a race-obsessed extreme leftist, he mainly took that path out of political opportunism. There are actually several arguments supporting that interpretation. For one, when Obama first entered state politics in Illinois, there is no way he could have imagined ever being in a position to run for president. It seems probable he joined Jeremiah Wright's church as a means of establishing credibility in the black community. His other questionable associations may have been similarly aimed at ingratiating himself into left-wing political circles. Despite these troubling associations, it doesn't appear that Obama has ever personally engaged in extreme left-wing rhetoric. Moreover, in his first book, Dreams From My Father, Obama seems to eschew radicalism in its various forms, sometimes in mocking, dismissive tones.
There is also the matter of Obama's legislative career. While he is clearly a staunch liberal, there is no evidence he has ever tried to pull his party to the far left.
All of this suggests the possibility that Obama is, in fact, more or less a mainstream liberal with a genuinely moderate temperament.
As I indicated, that's the "optimistic" interpretation. At the other extreme, one can argue that Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, the socialist New Party membership, "spread the wealth," etc., are all genuine red flags signifying a radical mindset that Obama has taken increasing pains to conceal as he's moved up the ladder of political success. If so, it follows that he will only display his true leftist colors after reaching the top rung on January 20.
I think either interpretation is entirely plausible. Unfortunately, the mere possibility that the latter interpretation is correct is more than enough reason to want to keep Obama out of the White House. Yet, if the polls are correct, the voters either don't recognize the risk or are willing to take a chance.
In acknowledging the possibility that Obama is just a mainstream liberal, I don't mean to imply that the country's fortunes wouldn't suffer as a result of his policies. They would, but the damage is likely to be less severe as compared to a program of radical socialist "reform."
There are mitigating factors, however, even if Obama turns out to be a radical in moderate clothing. First, since the country doesn't believe that's who they are electing, Obama won't have popular support if he seeks to govern as a hard-core leftist. In fact, he would lose a lot of Democratic support in Congress.
Another important factor is whether the GOP succeeds in holding onto at least 40 seats in the Senate. If they do, then Obama will be significantly constrained in his legislative agenda due to the requirement of 60 votes to end a filibuster.
Overall, while an Obama presidency would almost certainly be very bad for the country, it would not necessarily be the catastrophe that I have come to fear. Mainly I take solace in the fact that, however well Obama performs on Election Day, he will not have a mandate for radical change, having presented himself to the voters as a liberal-centrist. Provided Obama realizes this, we'll survive.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama's control over the media
Okay, so that's a pretty dire-sounding subject heading. Yet,as I write this, Drudge is headlining a 2001 radio interview in which Obama described it as "tragic" that the Warren Court's failed to interpret the Constitution as imposing an affirmative obligation on the part of government to redistribute wealth.
I'm no journalist, but that strikes me as newsworthy. Perhaps not as newsworthy as the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but newsworthy nonetheless.
Of course, the mainstream media seems to disagree, at least so far. After all, they have yet to report the fact that Obama belonged to a socialist fringe party in the 1990's.
Seriously, what the hell's going on here? Is this entirely a function of liberal media bias?
I'm not so sure it is. While liberal bias was clearly a big factor in Obama's success to date, I think the media are now gripped by something more powerful than mere ideological conviction.
They're certain he's going to win, and they're afraid he'll cut off their access if they raise embarrassing questions about him in the final days of the campaign.
There's no question that reporters and editors are willing to trade off journalistic integrity to preserve their access to power. A CNN producer even wrote an op-ed following the toppling of Saddam Hussein admitting that the network sugarcoated its portrayal of life under the Iraqi regime in order to keep its Baghdad bureau open. "This is CNN"? No, this is CNN.
With the broadcast networks and especially newspapers struggling to hold viewers and readers, they have a strong business incentive to remain on the Obama camp's good side as The Messiah prepares to assume the reins of power. They don't want to be deprived of one-on-one interviews with the new president and first lady. Moreover, they don't want to be demonized in the lefty blogosphere for trying to rain on the Democrats' big parade.
If editors and reporters for major media outlets have any qualms about failing to report on Obama's socialist-leaning past, they can console themselves with the knowledge that McCain appears headed for defeat regardless. That, along with their ideological affinity for Obama, makes it a no-brainer for them to look the other way for another week as yet further revelations surface over Obama's radical mindset.
I'm no journalist, but that strikes me as newsworthy. Perhaps not as newsworthy as the cost of Sarah Palin's wardrobe, but newsworthy nonetheless.
Of course, the mainstream media seems to disagree, at least so far. After all, they have yet to report the fact that Obama belonged to a socialist fringe party in the 1990's.
Seriously, what the hell's going on here? Is this entirely a function of liberal media bias?
I'm not so sure it is. While liberal bias was clearly a big factor in Obama's success to date, I think the media are now gripped by something more powerful than mere ideological conviction.
They're certain he's going to win, and they're afraid he'll cut off their access if they raise embarrassing questions about him in the final days of the campaign.
There's no question that reporters and editors are willing to trade off journalistic integrity to preserve their access to power. A CNN producer even wrote an op-ed following the toppling of Saddam Hussein admitting that the network sugarcoated its portrayal of life under the Iraqi regime in order to keep its Baghdad bureau open. "This is CNN"? No, this is CNN.
With the broadcast networks and especially newspapers struggling to hold viewers and readers, they have a strong business incentive to remain on the Obama camp's good side as The Messiah prepares to assume the reins of power. They don't want to be deprived of one-on-one interviews with the new president and first lady. Moreover, they don't want to be demonized in the lefty blogosphere for trying to rain on the Democrats' big parade.
If editors and reporters for major media outlets have any qualms about failing to report on Obama's socialist-leaning past, they can console themselves with the knowledge that McCain appears headed for defeat regardless. That, along with their ideological affinity for Obama, makes it a no-brainer for them to look the other way for another week as yet further revelations surface over Obama's radical mindset.
Friday, October 24, 2008
On misleading rhetorical devices
Political campaigns provide astute citizens with an opportunity to reflect on the ways rhetorical devices are used in support of or against the various candidates. I wanted to point out a few such devices that are commonly employed in what I would consider a misleading manner. I'll post more of these if and when I think of them.
"GUILT BY ASSOCIATION" - McCain's attacks on Obama's association with the likes of William Ayers has been dismissed in some quarters as "guilt by association." That's incorrect; nobody is accusing Obama of being a terrorist simply because of his association with a terrorist. What Obama is being criticized for is the association itself. It shows bad judgment and an apparent tolerance for the repugnant things Ayers represents. Although it is a fallacy to treat a candidate as a criminal simply because of his association with a criminal, that doesn't mean the candidate's association with a criminal is irrelevant in evaluating the candidate himself.
QUOTING SOMEONE "OUT OF CONTEXT" - This argument is overused for the simple reason that ALL quotes are taken out of context. If there is any unfairness involved, it's not that the person's words were taken out of their original context, but that this in some way altered the words' meaning. Unfortunately, asserting that a quote was "taken out of context" has become sort of an automatic response whenever a candidate's own words come back to haunt him. Rarely does a candidate ever explain how restoring the words to their original context would obviate the embarrassing quality of excerpted version. Even when they purport to go to that next step, they typically invent "context" that doesn't exist, such as the notion that they were only speaking "hypothetically," or in the past tense, etc.
USING "FEAR TACTICS" - The charge that a candidate is engaging in fear tactics assumes that there's never anything to fear from the policies our political leaders may choose to pursue. That assumption is, of course, nonsense. People rightly fear war, poverty, and the loss of freedom, among many other things. To the extent that a candidate's policies pose a significant threat of bringing about such consequences, it is only appropriate that people should fear the candidate and/or his policies. Obviously, the fear may not be justified in all cases, but that's not the point. The point is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using fear tactics. Depending on the circumstances, appealing to the voters' fears may be entirely appropriate.
10/27/2008 update:
"NEEDING A REASON TO VOTE FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE" - This comes up in the context of negative campaigning. The idea is that a candidate can't rely solely on negative campaigning but must also give voters an affirmative reason to vote for him. It's a clever-sounding concept, but it doesn't really make sense in a two-candidate race. Voters are often presented with a choice between two deeply flawed candidates. Assuming a voter is going to pull the lever for one candidate or the other (as opposed to not voting at all or writing in the name of his pet hamster), then demonstrating that Candidate A is completely unacceptable does give that voter an affirmative reason to vote for Candidate B. Moreover, even if the negative attack only succeeds in driving up the write-votes in favor of domesticated hamsters, that still benefits Candidate B enormously. If Candidate B can flip a potential vote from Candidate A to "Fred the Hamster," that's a marginal gain of one vote for Candidate B. Sure, it would be better to flip the vote from Candidate A to Candidate B -- net gain of two votes -- but that doesn't diminish the value of eroding Candidate A's vote totals.
"GUILT BY ASSOCIATION" - McCain's attacks on Obama's association with the likes of William Ayers has been dismissed in some quarters as "guilt by association." That's incorrect; nobody is accusing Obama of being a terrorist simply because of his association with a terrorist. What Obama is being criticized for is the association itself. It shows bad judgment and an apparent tolerance for the repugnant things Ayers represents. Although it is a fallacy to treat a candidate as a criminal simply because of his association with a criminal, that doesn't mean the candidate's association with a criminal is irrelevant in evaluating the candidate himself.
QUOTING SOMEONE "OUT OF CONTEXT" - This argument is overused for the simple reason that ALL quotes are taken out of context. If there is any unfairness involved, it's not that the person's words were taken out of their original context, but that this in some way altered the words' meaning. Unfortunately, asserting that a quote was "taken out of context" has become sort of an automatic response whenever a candidate's own words come back to haunt him. Rarely does a candidate ever explain how restoring the words to their original context would obviate the embarrassing quality of excerpted version. Even when they purport to go to that next step, they typically invent "context" that doesn't exist, such as the notion that they were only speaking "hypothetically," or in the past tense, etc.
USING "FEAR TACTICS" - The charge that a candidate is engaging in fear tactics assumes that there's never anything to fear from the policies our political leaders may choose to pursue. That assumption is, of course, nonsense. People rightly fear war, poverty, and the loss of freedom, among many other things. To the extent that a candidate's policies pose a significant threat of bringing about such consequences, it is only appropriate that people should fear the candidate and/or his policies. Obviously, the fear may not be justified in all cases, but that's not the point. The point is that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using fear tactics. Depending on the circumstances, appealing to the voters' fears may be entirely appropriate.
10/27/2008 update:
"NEEDING A REASON TO VOTE FOR THE OTHER CANDIDATE" - This comes up in the context of negative campaigning. The idea is that a candidate can't rely solely on negative campaigning but must also give voters an affirmative reason to vote for him. It's a clever-sounding concept, but it doesn't really make sense in a two-candidate race. Voters are often presented with a choice between two deeply flawed candidates. Assuming a voter is going to pull the lever for one candidate or the other (as opposed to not voting at all or writing in the name of his pet hamster), then demonstrating that Candidate A is completely unacceptable does give that voter an affirmative reason to vote for Candidate B. Moreover, even if the negative attack only succeeds in driving up the write-votes in favor of domesticated hamsters, that still benefits Candidate B enormously. If Candidate B can flip a potential vote from Candidate A to "Fred the Hamster," that's a marginal gain of one vote for Candidate B. Sure, it would be better to flip the vote from Candidate A to Candidate B -- net gain of two votes -- but that doesn't diminish the value of eroding Candidate A's vote totals.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
A Bachelor's Degree "Overrated"
Here's an interesting read on a topic I find increasingly depressing: "America's Most Overrated Product: A Bachelor's Degree".
Part of the problem seems to be our habit of measuring higher education success by the number of kids getting into college. We would be better off with fewer people going into traditional four-year degree programs and the rest going into direct career-training programs that are appropriate to their interests and abilities. Instead, colleges are taking in more students than they can reasonably hope to educate, the students getting in are less likely to succeed, tuition rates are running rampant, families are being swamped with debt that will take years to erase, and the federal government is facing increasing demands to pay for it all.
Part of the problem seems to be our habit of measuring higher education success by the number of kids getting into college. We would be better off with fewer people going into traditional four-year degree programs and the rest going into direct career-training programs that are appropriate to their interests and abilities. Instead, colleges are taking in more students than they can reasonably hope to educate, the students getting in are less likely to succeed, tuition rates are running rampant, families are being swamped with debt that will take years to erase, and the federal government is facing increasing demands to pay for it all.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Conventional wisdom is generally unwise
I just saw this headline from Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe: "That's_It_For_McCain." As one can surmise, she is referring to the fact that John McCain has emerged from the final debate still trailing Barack Obama.
This sort of conventional "wisdom" drives me nuts. It assumes that, in the absence of further debates, it is impossible for a candidate who is trailing in the polls to overcome a single-digit deficit in the polls with only three weeks left in the campaign. It's a ludicrous proposition.
This race isn't going to be over until Election Day. That's not a prediction of any massive movement toward McCain, it is simply an observation of fact.
The only value of Vennochi's column is that it helps to illustrate what has become the media narrative for the final stages of this race. The narrative now holds that Obama has safely emerged from the Republican Smear Machine gauntlet and is coasting to a landslide victory. Conservativism is now a discredited ideology and its remaining adherents have been exposed as bloodthirsty thugs screaming racist threats from the rafters of Sarah Palin events, which are now oddly reminiscent of the Nuremberg Rallies.
It's important to keep in mind that the narrative shapes the news, and not vice-versa. Anything that tends to support the narrative goes on the evening news. Anything that cuts against it is ignored.
This sort of conventional "wisdom" drives me nuts. It assumes that, in the absence of further debates, it is impossible for a candidate who is trailing in the polls to overcome a single-digit deficit in the polls with only three weeks left in the campaign. It's a ludicrous proposition.
This race isn't going to be over until Election Day. That's not a prediction of any massive movement toward McCain, it is simply an observation of fact.
The only value of Vennochi's column is that it helps to illustrate what has become the media narrative for the final stages of this race. The narrative now holds that Obama has safely emerged from the Republican Smear Machine gauntlet and is coasting to a landslide victory. Conservativism is now a discredited ideology and its remaining adherents have been exposed as bloodthirsty thugs screaming racist threats from the rafters of Sarah Palin events, which are now oddly reminiscent of the Nuremberg Rallies.
It's important to keep in mind that the narrative shapes the news, and not vice-versa. Anything that tends to support the narrative goes on the evening news. Anything that cuts against it is ignored.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Obama's "questionable" associations
Obama's associations with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Frank Marshall Davis doesn't seem to be hurting him much politically, but they do tell us something about how he would approach the problems he would (will?) face as president.
If there's a theme to Obama's "questionable" associations, it's that he always seems to perceive quite a bit of good in certain characters most Americans would instantly perceive as evil. In fact, this tendency of Obama's has reached comic proportions. The line "That's not the [insert name] I know" has become familiar joke during this campaign.
If there's any truth at all to the "post-partisan" label Obama has hung on himself, it's that he envisions himself as something of a mediator between parties in conflict. As a general rule, mediation assumes that there is some merit in both sides of a conflict. Thus, in his speech decrying certain extreme pronouncements by Rev. Wright, Obama went out of his way to contextualize those diatribes as a manifestation of the racial animosities that all Americans supposedly harbor. Rather than condemn Wright's hateful sermons and let it go at that, Obama had to use the moment to try to explain that Wright was merely expressing the same kind of racial fears that white people experience when they encounter a young black man in a darkened alley. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong; we all just need to understand one another.
Unfortunately, the American presidency is not an appropriate job for someone who basically craves compromise and reconciliation. First, a president is expected to provide leadership, not reconcile opposing viewpoints. While there's nothing wrong with showing respect for the opposition's position -- John McCain does this all the time -- the president's job is to make the ultimate decision and to persuade Congress and the American people why it is the right one.
Second, and more important still, it is essential to the role of the president that he never appear to be a disinterested party when it comes to America's relations with other countries. In the realm of foreign policy, the president should be an unapologetic advocate for America's interests and values. Unfortunately, there is reason to question whether Obama accepts that vision of the presidency. Obama wants to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, without any sort of preconditions. In the absence of preconditions, such meetings would necessarily imply that there is some merit to the anti-American (and anti-Israeli) ravings of such lunatics. Clearly, Obama wouldn't hold summit talks with, for example, Hugo Chavez, merely to tell him, "We're right and you're wrong." The mere fact of a face-to-face meeting would implied an acknowledgment that there is some common ground to be found between the two countries. Even if Obama made it clear he had no intention of altering U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela, he would be forced to dignify Chavez's predictable railings by sitting and listening to what the Venezuelan nutjob had to say. It's frankly ludicrous to think that Chavez wouldn't come out ahead in the exchange. And yet that would be, from the American point of view, the best case scenario. In the worst case, Obama would, in fact, liberalize U.S. policy toward Venezuela in some way, thus signaling weakness and implicitly suggesting that Chavez was somehow right all along.
Any student of American history knows that, in order to be successful, a president must be decisive, strong, and fundamentally unapologetic about the course they are steering on the nation's behalf. Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, and Reagan all capitalized on these qualities. Even George W. Bush, whose persuasive skills proved a perpetual liability, had a successful first term as a result of confident leadership in the War on Terror and various domestic reforms. Some of our worst presidents, notably Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Carter, failed because of their apparent lack of strength or resolve in dealing with the key issues facing their administrations. Whether it was Buchanan's refusal to deal with the succession crisis, Johnson's inability to gain control over the Radical Republicans in Congress and in his own cabinet, Grant's unwillingness to confront the apparent epidemic of corruption within his administration, or Carter's weakness in responding to foreign and economic turmoils, all of these presidents suffered due to a failure of leadership.
In Obama's case, it is not even clear he aspires to lead the country. Although the country would undoubtedly move to the left under his administration, it seems more likely than not that Congress will be the moving force and Obama merely a reliable rubber stamp. If and when real presidential leadership is required, such as during a foreign policy crisis, it is highly unlikely Obama will take an assertive position. He will find reasons not to impose or even threaten the use of military force because he will want to be perceived as a peacemaker who can lead the parties to a peaceful resolution. He will resist taking firm positions on America's behalf because he won't want to tarnish his image as a "citizen of the world." He will seek to elevate the role of international organizations and disparage the notion of American exceptionalism. He sees America in much the same way the world sees America, or he at least sees some merit in that point of view.
Obama may be a talented man, but he can't be trusted to stand up for American interests and values on the world stage. He is simply too tolerant of those who hold anti-American views and too enamored by his own perceived ability to rise above the fray and reconcile parties who are locked in conflict. America needs a president who sees the world as it is, not one who will try to reconcile Americans to a lesser vision of themselves.
If there's a theme to Obama's "questionable" associations, it's that he always seems to perceive quite a bit of good in certain characters most Americans would instantly perceive as evil. In fact, this tendency of Obama's has reached comic proportions. The line "That's not the [insert name] I know" has become familiar joke during this campaign.
If there's any truth at all to the "post-partisan" label Obama has hung on himself, it's that he envisions himself as something of a mediator between parties in conflict. As a general rule, mediation assumes that there is some merit in both sides of a conflict. Thus, in his speech decrying certain extreme pronouncements by Rev. Wright, Obama went out of his way to contextualize those diatribes as a manifestation of the racial animosities that all Americans supposedly harbor. Rather than condemn Wright's hateful sermons and let it go at that, Obama had to use the moment to try to explain that Wright was merely expressing the same kind of racial fears that white people experience when they encounter a young black man in a darkened alley. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong; we all just need to understand one another.
Unfortunately, the American presidency is not an appropriate job for someone who basically craves compromise and reconciliation. First, a president is expected to provide leadership, not reconcile opposing viewpoints. While there's nothing wrong with showing respect for the opposition's position -- John McCain does this all the time -- the president's job is to make the ultimate decision and to persuade Congress and the American people why it is the right one.
Second, and more important still, it is essential to the role of the president that he never appear to be a disinterested party when it comes to America's relations with other countries. In the realm of foreign policy, the president should be an unapologetic advocate for America's interests and values. Unfortunately, there is reason to question whether Obama accepts that vision of the presidency. Obama wants to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela, without any sort of preconditions. In the absence of preconditions, such meetings would necessarily imply that there is some merit to the anti-American (and anti-Israeli) ravings of such lunatics. Clearly, Obama wouldn't hold summit talks with, for example, Hugo Chavez, merely to tell him, "We're right and you're wrong." The mere fact of a face-to-face meeting would implied an acknowledgment that there is some common ground to be found between the two countries. Even if Obama made it clear he had no intention of altering U.S. foreign policy toward Venezuela, he would be forced to dignify Chavez's predictable railings by sitting and listening to what the Venezuelan nutjob had to say. It's frankly ludicrous to think that Chavez wouldn't come out ahead in the exchange. And yet that would be, from the American point of view, the best case scenario. In the worst case, Obama would, in fact, liberalize U.S. policy toward Venezuela in some way, thus signaling weakness and implicitly suggesting that Chavez was somehow right all along.
Any student of American history knows that, in order to be successful, a president must be decisive, strong, and fundamentally unapologetic about the course they are steering on the nation's behalf. Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, and Reagan all capitalized on these qualities. Even George W. Bush, whose persuasive skills proved a perpetual liability, had a successful first term as a result of confident leadership in the War on Terror and various domestic reforms. Some of our worst presidents, notably Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Carter, failed because of their apparent lack of strength or resolve in dealing with the key issues facing their administrations. Whether it was Buchanan's refusal to deal with the succession crisis, Johnson's inability to gain control over the Radical Republicans in Congress and in his own cabinet, Grant's unwillingness to confront the apparent epidemic of corruption within his administration, or Carter's weakness in responding to foreign and economic turmoils, all of these presidents suffered due to a failure of leadership.
In Obama's case, it is not even clear he aspires to lead the country. Although the country would undoubtedly move to the left under his administration, it seems more likely than not that Congress will be the moving force and Obama merely a reliable rubber stamp. If and when real presidential leadership is required, such as during a foreign policy crisis, it is highly unlikely Obama will take an assertive position. He will find reasons not to impose or even threaten the use of military force because he will want to be perceived as a peacemaker who can lead the parties to a peaceful resolution. He will resist taking firm positions on America's behalf because he won't want to tarnish his image as a "citizen of the world." He will seek to elevate the role of international organizations and disparage the notion of American exceptionalism. He sees America in much the same way the world sees America, or he at least sees some merit in that point of view.
Obama may be a talented man, but he can't be trusted to stand up for American interests and values on the world stage. He is simply too tolerant of those who hold anti-American views and too enamored by his own perceived ability to rise above the fray and reconcile parties who are locked in conflict. America needs a president who sees the world as it is, not one who will try to reconcile Americans to a lesser vision of themselves.
Friday, October 10, 2008
A how-to guide to socialism
Here's a great way to introduce socialism to America.
First, take a major sector of the economy, be it health care, automobile manufacturing, or banking, and find some way to destroy it.
For banking, you could, say, make banks give mortgages to people who can't repay them.
For automakers, impose CAFE standards that will make it impossible for them to sell cars profitably.
For health care, force insurers to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
Then, when these industries go belly-up, use trillions of taxpayer dollars to buy them out.
Just like that, the federal government ends up owning the economy!
One last thing: When the government starts jumping in to take over industries, be sure to call it a "rescue." That way, Washington comes off sounding like the good guy!
First, take a major sector of the economy, be it health care, automobile manufacturing, or banking, and find some way to destroy it.
For banking, you could, say, make banks give mortgages to people who can't repay them.
For automakers, impose CAFE standards that will make it impossible for them to sell cars profitably.
For health care, force insurers to provide coverage to people with preexisting conditions.
Then, when these industries go belly-up, use trillions of taxpayer dollars to buy them out.
Just like that, the federal government ends up owning the economy!
One last thing: When the government starts jumping in to take over industries, be sure to call it a "rescue." That way, Washington comes off sounding like the good guy!
Monday, October 6, 2008
Ayers and Keating
The Obama camp is attempting to proclaim a sort of moral equivalency between Barack's association with William Ayers and John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Although this tactic will probably work to blunt the Ayers attack, the two situations are clearly quite distinguishable.
The issue with Ayers is Obama's decision to be associated with him in the first place. By the time Obama first met Ayers, the latter was already a notorious ex-fugitive with a well-known terrorist past. To this day, he has never repudiated that past. I've heard him described in the mainstream media as a "former radical." It would be more accurate to call him a "retired terrorist." This is not the case of someone who realized the errors of his ways and atoned. This is someone who was wanted by the feds and eventually got tired of living his life on the lam. Since extricating himself from legal jeopardy, he may have forsaken his violent criminal behavior, but he hasn't apologized to his victims or otherwise shown remorse for his crimes.
Obama's defense in regard to Ayers has two main components. First, he has downplayed the nature and extent of the relationship. Second, he points to the fact that, around Chicago, it's not regarded as socially unacceptable to be associated with Ayers.
As for the first part of Obama's defense, it seems rather beside the point. Obama may not have been close friends with Ayers, but so what? Ayers was someone Obama openly associated himself with on a number of high-visibility projects, including Obama's own campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The fact that he allowed Ayers to host a campaign event in his honor and served with Ayers on various boards and panels implies a degree of respect and approval for what Ayers represents. It doesn't matter if it was one campaign event or twenty, or if it was a dozen boards and panels or a hundred. It's the fact that Obama was willing to attach his own good name to Ayers that is so telling.
As for the second part of Obama's defense -- the notion that Ayers is considered a respectable public figure in Chicago political circles -- this sounds more like a confession than a defense. If Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago it is precisely because people like Barack Obama , who should know better, are willing to offer him mainstream legitimacy. At best, it sounds like Obama deferred to the judgment of others in his assessment of Ayers rather than forming an independent judgment.
No matter how you slice it, Obama's voluntary, public embrace of Ayers reflects poorly on his own character. Either Obama doesn't find any repulsive about Ayers and his wife and partner-in-crime Bernadette Dohrn, or he does, but has been too craven to say so.
Now let's look at John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Keating owned an S&L. He had no criminal or violent past as far as know. What he did have was a bank, Lincoln Savings, that was in precarious financial shape due in part to investments that were both bad and, at least in part, illegal. The regulator for Lincoln Savings, FHLBB, was investigating Lincoln with an eye toward a possible federal takeover. In the meantime, Keating sought the assistance of five U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in an effort to head off that move. For his part, McCain attended a meeting with FHLBB board members and wrote a letter, but didn't pressure the board to take any action one way or the other in regard to Keating. Rather, he wanted the FHLBB to make a decision one way or the other as soon as possible so as to avoid further delay in resolving the matter.
The "Keating 5" scandal was fully investigated at the time -- this was about twenty years ago -- and McCain was exonerated from any charges of improper conduct. That's not end of the story however.
The Keating 5 scandal represents an important chapter in John McCain's political biography, not because of what he did at the time, but because of how it affected the future course of his public service. Despite his being cleared of any formal charges in the matter, observers have cited the episode as a being instrumental in focusing McCain on issues of public corruption and the corrosive influence of campaign donations on the political process. He clearly felt that campaign donations had influenced the senators to take actions on behalf of a constituent that they would not otherwise have taken, with a resulting undermining of the public's confidence in their government officials. McCain resolved to make "cleaning up Washington" a part of his political agenda ever since.
Whatever one thinks about McCain and the Keating 5, the situation bears no resemblance to Obama's association with William Ayers. If anything, McCain's response to the scandal demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to make amends. Nothing similar can be said about Obama and Ayers. Obama has characterized his involvement with Ayers in a misleading fashion in order to avoid be tainted by it in this election. He has never expressed regret for helping to legitimize Ayers in public circles. Both the Ayers connection and the Keating 5 are revealing episodes in the careers of these candidates. However, what the Ayers matter reveals about Obama is far more disturbing than what the Keating matter reveals about McCain.
The issue with Ayers is Obama's decision to be associated with him in the first place. By the time Obama first met Ayers, the latter was already a notorious ex-fugitive with a well-known terrorist past. To this day, he has never repudiated that past. I've heard him described in the mainstream media as a "former radical." It would be more accurate to call him a "retired terrorist." This is not the case of someone who realized the errors of his ways and atoned. This is someone who was wanted by the feds and eventually got tired of living his life on the lam. Since extricating himself from legal jeopardy, he may have forsaken his violent criminal behavior, but he hasn't apologized to his victims or otherwise shown remorse for his crimes.
Obama's defense in regard to Ayers has two main components. First, he has downplayed the nature and extent of the relationship. Second, he points to the fact that, around Chicago, it's not regarded as socially unacceptable to be associated with Ayers.
As for the first part of Obama's defense, it seems rather beside the point. Obama may not have been close friends with Ayers, but so what? Ayers was someone Obama openly associated himself with on a number of high-visibility projects, including Obama's own campaign for the Illinois State Senate. The fact that he allowed Ayers to host a campaign event in his honor and served with Ayers on various boards and panels implies a degree of respect and approval for what Ayers represents. It doesn't matter if it was one campaign event or twenty, or if it was a dozen boards and panels or a hundred. It's the fact that Obama was willing to attach his own good name to Ayers that is so telling.
As for the second part of Obama's defense -- the notion that Ayers is considered a respectable public figure in Chicago political circles -- this sounds more like a confession than a defense. If Ayers is considered respectable in Chicago it is precisely because people like Barack Obama , who should know better, are willing to offer him mainstream legitimacy. At best, it sounds like Obama deferred to the judgment of others in his assessment of Ayers rather than forming an independent judgment.
No matter how you slice it, Obama's voluntary, public embrace of Ayers reflects poorly on his own character. Either Obama doesn't find any repulsive about Ayers and his wife and partner-in-crime Bernadette Dohrn, or he does, but has been too craven to say so.
Now let's look at John McCain's association with Charles Keating. Keating owned an S&L. He had no criminal or violent past as far as know. What he did have was a bank, Lincoln Savings, that was in precarious financial shape due in part to investments that were both bad and, at least in part, illegal. The regulator for Lincoln Savings, FHLBB, was investigating Lincoln with an eye toward a possible federal takeover. In the meantime, Keating sought the assistance of five U.S. senators, both Democrats and Republicans, in an effort to head off that move. For his part, McCain attended a meeting with FHLBB board members and wrote a letter, but didn't pressure the board to take any action one way or the other in regard to Keating. Rather, he wanted the FHLBB to make a decision one way or the other as soon as possible so as to avoid further delay in resolving the matter.
The "Keating 5" scandal was fully investigated at the time -- this was about twenty years ago -- and McCain was exonerated from any charges of improper conduct. That's not end of the story however.
The Keating 5 scandal represents an important chapter in John McCain's political biography, not because of what he did at the time, but because of how it affected the future course of his public service. Despite his being cleared of any formal charges in the matter, observers have cited the episode as a being instrumental in focusing McCain on issues of public corruption and the corrosive influence of campaign donations on the political process. He clearly felt that campaign donations had influenced the senators to take actions on behalf of a constituent that they would not otherwise have taken, with a resulting undermining of the public's confidence in their government officials. McCain resolved to make "cleaning up Washington" a part of his political agenda ever since.
Whatever one thinks about McCain and the Keating 5, the situation bears no resemblance to Obama's association with William Ayers. If anything, McCain's response to the scandal demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to make amends. Nothing similar can be said about Obama and Ayers. Obama has characterized his involvement with Ayers in a misleading fashion in order to avoid be tainted by it in this election. He has never expressed regret for helping to legitimize Ayers in public circles. Both the Ayers connection and the Keating 5 are revealing episodes in the careers of these candidates. However, what the Ayers matter reveals about Obama is far more disturbing than what the Keating matter reveals about McCain.
The role of trust in an era of transparency
It occurred to me that Barack Obama may be the beneficiary of two historical trends in the relationship between the president and the people.
In the early days of the republic, citizens had no effective means of monitoring the activities of the president. Although there were newspapers, the press had no regular access to the president. Moreover, because the papers tended to be openly and stridently partisan, editors were more interested in sparring with their opponents than in engaging in what we would recognize as journalism. Finally, because news couldn't travel any faster than a horse could canter down a country road, folks in distant towns and villages wouldn't learn of events in the capital until weeks after the fact.
Since those early days, Washington has been steadily transformed into an open book. There is now something called a "White House press corps" with permanent offices in the West Wing. Armies of journalists can spread news across the country at light speed. Moreover, the Washington media now operates without any of the deference or restraint that defined previous eras of reporting.
And it's not just the press that has changed. The exponential expansion of the government's payroll makes it nearly impossible for the White House to keep information under wraps even when state secrets are involved. In fact, secrecy is rarely the goal. Hordes of press officers and hundreds of government websites exist for the sole purpose of advertising the administration's activities and plans.
I would argue that the trend toward increased transparency in government has made trust a much less valued commodity when it comes to choosing a president. In the old days, the people had to trust the president to do the right thing, because they couldn't tell what was really happening in Washington. Today, with the goings on within the administration being broadcast in excruciating detail, there is comparatively little fear of a president taking surreptitious actions to the country's detriment. Presidents can still take or support controversial moves, but the controversy will be aired in public.
Our modern media leave much to be desired, but there is no question we live in an age of remarkable governmental transparency. That transparency creates at least the threat of holding presidents publicly accountable for their official actions. We no longer have to simply trust that our presidents are doing right. Today, it's "trust but verify."
A would-be president like Barack Obama could be a major beneficiary of this trend. A majority of Americans seem prepared to hand him the keys to the White House despite evidence of an extremely left-wing mindset. Since America is anything but a left-wing country, it is perhaps surprising to find Obama doing so well. Perhaps voters realize that Obama could never get away with a truly radical transformation of the country's political, economic, and social institutions. Thus, while they don't necessarily trust Obama not to try to take the country down the wrong road, they do trust the ability of the Republicans, the media, and popular opinion to stop him.
In order to test the validity of this argument, let's conduct this simple mind experiment. Imagine that instead of electing a president next month, America were electing a dictator. I submit that, if we were electing a dictator, John McCain would be out-polling Obama by a significant margin. The difference in Obama's electoral prospects under the two scenarios, I would argue, relates to trust. In an election for dictator, voters would necessarily place a great deal more importance on whether they could trust the candidate, and Obama would come up short in comparison to McCain. However, so long as the issue is "merely" who is chosen as president in the present-day atmosphere of extreme transparency, Americans feel than can afford to choose Obama.
I made reference to a second historical trend that seemingly favors Obama. I have long believed that politics has become a form of entertainment for many Americans. It's sort of a cross between a professional sporting event and a character drama. It has more to do with the personalities of the people involved than it does with the health and welfare of the country. People identify with certain politicians or parties and they want them to succeed. Or, they dislike the other side and want to see them fail. How the outcome of these dramas affect the country is of secondary concern. Indeed, many people are convinced it makes no difference in the real world which side comes out on top.
To whatever extent Americans regard politics as a form of entertainment, Obama holds that as an advantage over McCain. There's no question he's newer, trendier, and more interesting to watch than the 70-something Washington veteran. As McCain has already pointed out in this election, Obama makes for a pretty good celebrity.
What I find interesting is that the two concurrent trends -- increased transparency and increased focus on politics as a form of entertainment -- are really two sides of the same coin. Both are the product of the fact that the president now operates under a media spotlight. The spotlight allows an attractive candidate like Obama to appeal to people in the same way a movie star appeals to people. But the spotlight also arguably constrains him from taking radical,transformative moves for which there would be a lack of widespread popular support.
In the early days of the republic, citizens had no effective means of monitoring the activities of the president. Although there were newspapers, the press had no regular access to the president. Moreover, because the papers tended to be openly and stridently partisan, editors were more interested in sparring with their opponents than in engaging in what we would recognize as journalism. Finally, because news couldn't travel any faster than a horse could canter down a country road, folks in distant towns and villages wouldn't learn of events in the capital until weeks after the fact.
Since those early days, Washington has been steadily transformed into an open book. There is now something called a "White House press corps" with permanent offices in the West Wing. Armies of journalists can spread news across the country at light speed. Moreover, the Washington media now operates without any of the deference or restraint that defined previous eras of reporting.
And it's not just the press that has changed. The exponential expansion of the government's payroll makes it nearly impossible for the White House to keep information under wraps even when state secrets are involved. In fact, secrecy is rarely the goal. Hordes of press officers and hundreds of government websites exist for the sole purpose of advertising the administration's activities and plans.
I would argue that the trend toward increased transparency in government has made trust a much less valued commodity when it comes to choosing a president. In the old days, the people had to trust the president to do the right thing, because they couldn't tell what was really happening in Washington. Today, with the goings on within the administration being broadcast in excruciating detail, there is comparatively little fear of a president taking surreptitious actions to the country's detriment. Presidents can still take or support controversial moves, but the controversy will be aired in public.
Our modern media leave much to be desired, but there is no question we live in an age of remarkable governmental transparency. That transparency creates at least the threat of holding presidents publicly accountable for their official actions. We no longer have to simply trust that our presidents are doing right. Today, it's "trust but verify."
A would-be president like Barack Obama could be a major beneficiary of this trend. A majority of Americans seem prepared to hand him the keys to the White House despite evidence of an extremely left-wing mindset. Since America is anything but a left-wing country, it is perhaps surprising to find Obama doing so well. Perhaps voters realize that Obama could never get away with a truly radical transformation of the country's political, economic, and social institutions. Thus, while they don't necessarily trust Obama not to try to take the country down the wrong road, they do trust the ability of the Republicans, the media, and popular opinion to stop him.
In order to test the validity of this argument, let's conduct this simple mind experiment. Imagine that instead of electing a president next month, America were electing a dictator. I submit that, if we were electing a dictator, John McCain would be out-polling Obama by a significant margin. The difference in Obama's electoral prospects under the two scenarios, I would argue, relates to trust. In an election for dictator, voters would necessarily place a great deal more importance on whether they could trust the candidate, and Obama would come up short in comparison to McCain. However, so long as the issue is "merely" who is chosen as president in the present-day atmosphere of extreme transparency, Americans feel than can afford to choose Obama.
I made reference to a second historical trend that seemingly favors Obama. I have long believed that politics has become a form of entertainment for many Americans. It's sort of a cross between a professional sporting event and a character drama. It has more to do with the personalities of the people involved than it does with the health and welfare of the country. People identify with certain politicians or parties and they want them to succeed. Or, they dislike the other side and want to see them fail. How the outcome of these dramas affect the country is of secondary concern. Indeed, many people are convinced it makes no difference in the real world which side comes out on top.
To whatever extent Americans regard politics as a form of entertainment, Obama holds that as an advantage over McCain. There's no question he's newer, trendier, and more interesting to watch than the 70-something Washington veteran. As McCain has already pointed out in this election, Obama makes for a pretty good celebrity.
What I find interesting is that the two concurrent trends -- increased transparency and increased focus on politics as a form of entertainment -- are really two sides of the same coin. Both are the product of the fact that the president now operates under a media spotlight. The spotlight allows an attractive candidate like Obama to appeal to people in the same way a movie star appeals to people. But the spotlight also arguably constrains him from taking radical,transformative moves for which there would be a lack of widespread popular support.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Obama as Reagan, Part II
I recently blogged about the apparent similarities between this election and the election of 1980. That post focused on Reagan's success in demonstrating, primarily through the debates against Jimmy Carter, that he was not the wild-eyed extremist Carter and the media had portrayed him as. I thought a similar phenomenon might be working in Barack Obama's favor this year. Despite all the troubling aspects of his candidacy, he has crafted a public persona that seems both moderate and assuring.
There's another point to be made about Ronald Reagan that is perhaps even more relevant to understanding the 2008 campaign. Reagan is the only president since JFK to really inspire his party's base. Among other things, that means the Democrats have not really had an inspiring candidate reach the White House in over 45 years. Since then, the closest they've come to experiencing the spirit of Camelot was in 1968. That dream, however, was ended by an assassin's bullet in a Los Angeles hotel. The election of 1972 was a fiasco for the Democrats. Carter won in '76, but he hardly made the party faithful swoon. The '84 and '88 elections both featured boring candidates who lost in landslides.
The Clinton presidency failed to ignite liberal passions for a number of reasons. First, Bill Clinton was widely regarded as a scoundrel and a rogue, words we don't generally associate with inspiring heroes. Second, he ran and governed as something of a centrist, and tended to play small-ball in crafting a domestic agenda. Midnight basketball programs are hardly the stuff of Mount Rushmore. Finally, while the Democratic faithful at times truly appreciated Clinton, they knew he would never be measure up to Reagan in the eyes of the nation as a whole.
That brings me to the main point of this walk down memory lane, which is this:
Democrats are deeply envious of the fact that the Republicans produced a star like Ronald Reagan in their recent history. They want one, too. And they've been waiting a long time.
In Obama, the Democrats have found someone who they think has the potential to become another JFK: a president who is young, sophisticated, smooth, glamorous, and smart. With those qualities, they don't see how he can fail.
Importantly, Obama is the ultimate "no compromises" candidate for the Democrats. He's as liberal as the party's base could ever hope for, and he's not from the South. He's the ideal candidate for liberals longing for a return to the days of the Kennedys.
All of this helps explain the outpouring of Democratic hatred for Sarah Palin. Not only does she represent an immediate threat to Obama's electoral prospects, she seems to hold the potential to become another Reagan! If Obama were to lose this election, and Palin's dazzling star power were to land her in the White House in her own right in four or eight years, that would represent such as cruel fate for Democratic faithful, they would never get over it.
Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly likely they won't have to.
There's another point to be made about Ronald Reagan that is perhaps even more relevant to understanding the 2008 campaign. Reagan is the only president since JFK to really inspire his party's base. Among other things, that means the Democrats have not really had an inspiring candidate reach the White House in over 45 years. Since then, the closest they've come to experiencing the spirit of Camelot was in 1968. That dream, however, was ended by an assassin's bullet in a Los Angeles hotel. The election of 1972 was a fiasco for the Democrats. Carter won in '76, but he hardly made the party faithful swoon. The '84 and '88 elections both featured boring candidates who lost in landslides.
The Clinton presidency failed to ignite liberal passions for a number of reasons. First, Bill Clinton was widely regarded as a scoundrel and a rogue, words we don't generally associate with inspiring heroes. Second, he ran and governed as something of a centrist, and tended to play small-ball in crafting a domestic agenda. Midnight basketball programs are hardly the stuff of Mount Rushmore. Finally, while the Democratic faithful at times truly appreciated Clinton, they knew he would never be measure up to Reagan in the eyes of the nation as a whole.
That brings me to the main point of this walk down memory lane, which is this:
Democrats are deeply envious of the fact that the Republicans produced a star like Ronald Reagan in their recent history. They want one, too. And they've been waiting a long time.
In Obama, the Democrats have found someone who they think has the potential to become another JFK: a president who is young, sophisticated, smooth, glamorous, and smart. With those qualities, they don't see how he can fail.
Importantly, Obama is the ultimate "no compromises" candidate for the Democrats. He's as liberal as the party's base could ever hope for, and he's not from the South. He's the ideal candidate for liberals longing for a return to the days of the Kennedys.
All of this helps explain the outpouring of Democratic hatred for Sarah Palin. Not only does she represent an immediate threat to Obama's electoral prospects, she seems to hold the potential to become another Reagan! If Obama were to lose this election, and Palin's dazzling star power were to land her in the White House in her own right in four or eight years, that would represent such as cruel fate for Democratic faithful, they would never get over it.
Unfortunately, it's looking increasingly likely they won't have to.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Supreme Court decisions I disagree with
Evidently Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin to name some Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with. I'm not sure what the legitimate point of such a question would be. Is it really necessary to state one's disagreement with the Dred Scott decision?
Just for fun, I'll pretend that question was asked of me in a television interview setting. I would name Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Japanese-American internment decision (Koramutsu, I think?). I'd probably not mention Brown v. Board of Education since my disagreement would be with the rationale of the decision, not the result. I'd probably not mention Miranda or Gideon only because I wouldn't trust the interviewer to allow me to explain my disagreement with those kinds of cases. I would mention Roe v. Wade. I would mention Kelo (the fairly recent eminent domain case).
Given a lot more time to think about it, I might come up with a few more bad decisions that I could actually name (as opposed to describe). However, as the list stands, I could only come up with five that I would definitely have mentioned, and two of those (Dred Scott and Roe) are pretty obvious.
Five decisions.
It's worth mentioning at this point that I have studied Constitutional law.
Just for fun, I'll pretend that question was asked of me in a television interview setting. I would name Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the Japanese-American internment decision (Koramutsu, I think?). I'd probably not mention Brown v. Board of Education since my disagreement would be with the rationale of the decision, not the result. I'd probably not mention Miranda or Gideon only because I wouldn't trust the interviewer to allow me to explain my disagreement with those kinds of cases. I would mention Roe v. Wade. I would mention Kelo (the fairly recent eminent domain case).
Given a lot more time to think about it, I might come up with a few more bad decisions that I could actually name (as opposed to describe). However, as the list stands, I could only come up with five that I would definitely have mentioned, and two of those (Dred Scott and Roe) are pretty obvious.
Five decisions.
It's worth mentioning at this point that I have studied Constitutional law.
The gotchafication of presidential campaigns
I was feeling alright this morning until I heard a pre-debate "analysis" from Larry Sabato. He opined that tonight's clash between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be important because "Biden is a gaffe machine" and "Palin has demonstrated that she doesn't know much about foreign policy or domestic policy." (These are as close to direct quotes as my memory will allow.)
What the hell has happened to this country? Apparently, we have reached the point where the only thing that matters in elections is which candidate makes the fewest glaringly stupid statements.
Gaffes have always mattered in campaigns, but never before have they been the central focus of an election.
Charles Gibson and Katie Couric spent hours upon hours interviewing Gov. Palin. They aired a fraction of that footage, and then the media at large endlessly replayed a total of perhaps 60 seconds of tape in which she appears ignorant or off-balance. Thus it works out that the worst, most unflattering minute out of probably 20 hours of videotape gets all of the attention.
The emphasis is all wrong. What really distinguishes the two presidential tickets is not their personalities, their styles, the manner of speech, or how they look. It's where they plan to take the country. That's the debate we should be having. Instead, the media approach debates as if they were auditioning actors for an ad campaign. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and all anyone can talk about is John McCain's failure to make eye contact.
We desperately need a serious press in this country.
What the hell has happened to this country? Apparently, we have reached the point where the only thing that matters in elections is which candidate makes the fewest glaringly stupid statements.
Gaffes have always mattered in campaigns, but never before have they been the central focus of an election.
Charles Gibson and Katie Couric spent hours upon hours interviewing Gov. Palin. They aired a fraction of that footage, and then the media at large endlessly replayed a total of perhaps 60 seconds of tape in which she appears ignorant or off-balance. Thus it works out that the worst, most unflattering minute out of probably 20 hours of videotape gets all of the attention.
The emphasis is all wrong. What really distinguishes the two presidential tickets is not their personalities, their styles, the manner of speech, or how they look. It's where they plan to take the country. That's the debate we should be having. Instead, the media approach debates as if they were auditioning actors for an ad campaign. The economy is teetering on the brink of collapse and all anyone can talk about is John McCain's failure to make eye contact.
We desperately need a serious press in this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
